In the Matter of Juan Moreno
Investigation Relating to
The State of Texas v. Ruben Cantu,
Cause No. 85-CR-1303

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

Timeline......................................................................................................................ii
I. Executive Summary..............................................................................................1
A.
B.
C.
D.

History..............................................................................................................1
Scope & Methodology .....................................................................................3
Investigation Findings ......................................................................................4
Conclusion........................................................................................................6

II. Analysis ................................................................................................................7
III. Ruben Cantu⎯Admissions of Guilt ................................................................7
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.

Introduction ......................................................................................................7
The Plea Bargain ..............................................................................................8
Admission to Ramiro Reyes.............................................................................9
Admission to Thomas Cooremans ...................................................................11
Admission to Prison Officials ..........................................................................13
Other Evidence of Guilt....................................................................................14
Reason for the Admissions ..............................................................................14

IV. Juan Moreno⎯The Eyewitness........................................................................16
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.

Introduction ......................................................................................................16
Moreno’s Statements to the Police...................................................................18
The Certainty of the Identification During the Court Proceedings ..................24
The NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund Investigation .....................29
Moreno’s Statement to this Investigation.........................................................64

V. The Alibi & The Conspiracy: Claims of Cantu’s Innocence ..........................71
A. The Alibi ..........................................................................................................71
B. The Conspiracy.................................................................................................80
C. The Codefendant⎯David Garza......................................................................104
VI. Conclusion ..........................................................................................................112

i

TIMELINE
NOVEMBER 8, 1984⎯Pedro Gomez, 25, is fatally shot and Juan Moreno, 19, is
wounded a burglary and robbery at 605 Briggs Street, San Antonio, Texas. Juan Moreno
tells an officer at the scene that two Latin males that lived next door had shot him.
NOVEMBER 10, 1984⎯Ruben Cantu confesses his involvement in the Briggs Street
capital murder to Ramiro Reyes.
NOVEMBER 14, 1984⎯Detectives Herring and Rivas visit Juan Moreno at the
hospital. Juan Moreno, who barely survived, describes his assailants as being Latin
males, one 13-14 years old and the other 19. He tells Detective Herring through
Detective Rivas, a Spanish speaker, that he has seen the 13-14 year old around the
neighborhood but doesn’t know his name. He is shown 7 different photo lineups that do
not contain a photograph of either Ruben Cantu or David Garza. He does not identify
anyone out of these lineups.
NOVEMBER 23, 1984⎯Detective Herring obtains information from a patrol officer
that Ruben Cantu and David Garza were involved in the Briggs Street capital murder.
DECEMBER 1, 1984⎯Detective Herring receives information from a teacher at South
San High School naming Ruben Cantu, David Garza and Ramiro Reyes as being
involved in the Briggs Street capital murder.
DECEMBER 13, 1984⎯Ramiro Reyes is brought to the San Antonio Police Department
main station and denies knowing about the murder. He relents and tells police Ruben
Cantu had told him that he, Cantu, had committed the murder on Briggs Street. He
refused to give a written statement out of fear of retaliation.
DECEMBER 16, 1984⎯Juan Moreno views a photo lineup that includes Ruben Cantu’s
picture. Juan Moreno does not identify Ruben Cantu. Detectives Herring and Garza
notice Juan Moreno would not even look at Ruben Cantu’s picture and can see Juan
Moreno is scared and will not identify the actor. Detective Herring ceases work on this
case when he is transferred to the Burglary Division.
MARCH 1, 1985⎯ Ruben Cantu shoots Officer Joe De La Luz in a bar. Witnesses at
the bar identify Ruben Cantu as the shooter. Ruben Cantu is arrested for this shooting.
MARCH 2, 1985⎯Detective Balleza, a Spanish speaker, is sent to interview Juan
Moreno and shows him a photo lineup with Ruben Cantu’s picture. Detective Balleza
later testifies Juan Moreno appeared visibly shaken when shown the photograph. Still,
Juan Moreno does not identify Ruben Cantu. Detective Balleza’s opinion is that Moreno
was fearful of Ruben Cantu.

ii

MARCH 3, 1985⎯Detective Quintanilla and Sergeant Ewell go to the hospital to show
Officer De La Luz a photo lineup. De La Luz identifies Ruben Cantu from the photo
lineup as the individual who shot him.
Detective Quintanilla, a Spanish speaker, is sent to interview Juan Moreno. After being
brought back to the police station with his brother, Eusebio, Juan Moreno identifies
Ruben Cantu as the person who shot him and Pedro Gomez. Juan Moreno gives a written
statement to police.
Eusebio Moreno gives a written statement to the police stating that Juan Moreno was
afraid to identify the shooter.
MARCH 4, 1985⎯Ramiro Reyes gives a written statement to police detailing what
Ruben Cantu told him about the Briggs Street capital murder.
MARCH 5, 1985⎯Juan Moreno is shown a photo lineup containing a photograph of
David Garza. Juan Moreno picks David Garza, a juvenile, out of the photo lineup and
identifies him as the accomplice in the Briggs Street capital murder. Juan Moreno gives a
second written statement to police.
APRIL 4, 1985⎯Juan and Eusebio Moreno talk to District Attorney Investigator
Kenneth Thuleen. Juan Moreno details Ruben Cantu’s involvement as the shooter and
David Garza’s involvement as the person who stole Pedro Gomez’s wallet. Juan Moreno
tells Thuleen that he had seen Ruben Cantu walk by the house (605 Briggs Street).
APRIL 15, 1985⎯Ramiro Reyes meets with Investigator Thuleen and tells Thuleen
everything that Ruben Cantu told him about Cantu’s involvement in the capital murder.
APRIL 16, 1985⎯Ramiro Reyes recants to Investigator Thuleen telling him that
everything he told him the day before was a lie. At Thuleen’s request, Reyes agrees to go
to SAPD to take a polygraph examination. The results show that Reyes was not present
at the time of the offense and that he was being deceptive about not knowing who had
done the shooting.
MAY 8, 1985⎯Ruben Cantu is indicted for the capital murder of Pedro Gomez.
MAY 31, 1985⎯Hearing on the motion to suppress the identification of Ruben Cantu
begins.
JUNE 14, 1985⎯Juan Moreno testifies in David Garza’s examining trial and identifies
David Garza as a co-actor and names Ruben Cantu as the shooter.
JULY 8, 1985⎯Ramiro Reyes testifies at Ruben Cantu’s identification suppression
hearing.

iii

JULY 9, 1985⎯Juan Moreno testifies at the hearing to suppress the identification of
Ruben Cantu and identifies Ruben Cantu as the shooter.
JULY 21, 1985⎯While driving home, Ramiro Reyes is shot at 3 times from an unknown
individual inside a truck that Reyes recognizes as belonging to Robert Cantu, Ruben
Cantu’s older brother.
JULY 22-24, 1985⎯Ruben Cantu’s capital murder case is tried. Juan Moreno testifies
in front of the jury and identifies Ruben Cantu as the shooter.
JULY 25, 1985⎯Ruben Cantu is convicted of the capital murder of Pedro Gomez.
JULY 30, 1985⎯Jury returns the punishment verdict.
The case against Ruben Cantu, in cause number 85-CR-1304, the attempted murder of
Joe De La Luz, is dismissed. The explanation written on the dismissal by Assistant
District Attorney Bruce Baxter is that the defendant was convicted of capital murder in
85-CR-1303 and the facts of the De La Luz case were considered in the assessment of
punishment in the capital case.
AUGUST 1, 1985⎯Judge Barrera sentences Ruben Cantu to death.
AUGUST 23, 1985⎯David Garza pleads guilty to the lesser offense of robbery and is
sentenced to 20 years in TDC.
AUGUST 24, 1993⎯Ruben Cantu is executed.

iv

MEMORANDUM
TO:

HON. SUSAN D. REED, BEXAR COUNTY CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY

DATE:

JUNE 26, 2007

RE:

IN THE MATTER OF JUAN MORENO: INVESTIGATION RELATING TO
THE STATE OF TEXAS V. RUBEN CANTU, CAUSE NO. 85-CR-1303

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. HISTORY
On November 8, 1984, Pedro Gomez and Juan Moreno were sleeping in a home
under construction at 605 Briggs Street, San Antonio, Texas. Two men burglarized the
residence for the purpose of robbing the occupants. One of burglars shot Pedro Gomez
eight times and shot Juan Moreno nine times. Pedro Gomez died at the scene and Juan
Moreno survived.
Over the course of several weeks, Ruben Cantu and David Garza emerged as
suspects. Ruben Cantu lived at 612 Briggs Street, which was across the street from the
house where the shooting took place. There was information from school officials that
Cantu and Garza had been talking about their involvement in the murder and shooting.
Ruben Cantu even confessed his involvement to a friend, Ramiro Reyes. The surviving
eyewitness, Juan Moreno, identified Ruben Cantu as the shooter and David Garza as his
accomplice in the photographic lineups.
Ultimately both Cantu and Garza were indicted by a Bexar County Grand Jury.
Ruben Cantu, through his attorney Roland Garcia, and the State of Texas, through
Assistant District Attorney Ray Fuchs, reached an agreement that Cantu would plead
guilty in exchange for the recommendation of a life sentence for murder. The trial judge
1 of 113

rejected the plea agreement because it did not contain a finding of a deadly weapon,
which would have affected Cantu’s parole time eligibility. Consequently a jury was
empanelled and evidence was presented to the jury.
Initially, the prosecution planned to have both Ramiro Reyes and Juan Moreno
testify at the trial. But Reyes and members of his family were threatened and intimidated
by Cantu and his family members for cooperating with the investigation and prosecution.
Fearing for Reyes’ safety, and given the strength of Moreno’s identification of Cantu, the
decision was made that Reyes would not to testify.
The jury found Ruben Cantu guilty of capital murder, after considering and
rejecting his alibi defense. Cantu was executed in August of 1993 for the capital murder
of Pedro Gomez.
His juvenile codefendant, David Garza, who was certified to stand trial as an
adult, pled guilty on August 21, 1985, to the offense of robbery arising out of the same
incident and was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment.
Twenty years after the trial and twelve years after the execution, the Houston
Chronicle, utilizing an investigation done by the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational
Fund, headlined and front-paged stories by Lise Olsen suggesting that Cantu was
innocent. According to the articles, the sole witness to identify Cantu before the jury,
Juan Moreno, had lied. The stories were reprinted and expanded by the San Antonio
Express-News.
The interests of justice required the Olsen stories be analyzed and an investigation
was conducted to determine if sufficient evidence existed to justify pursuing an

2 of 113

indictment under Texas laws of Moreno for murder by perjury 1 and if another individual,
Ramiro Reyes, who David Garza now claims was with him on the night of the offense,
should be charged with the capital murder of Pedro Gomez.
B. SCOPE & METHODOLOGY
An exhaustive investigation was conducted utilizing the skills and experience of
seven senior level Assistant District Attorneys, eight sworn peace officer investigators,
and the Texas Rangers, as well as obtaining evidence from thirty-five Texas government
agencies or private entities. More than fifty witnesses were interviewed and sworn
written statements were taken. All available documents and records were retrieved and
reviewed. These include trial and appellate records, police reports, prison records, news
accounts, defense records, NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund investigation
records, and current records of various witnesses, such as the telephone and prison
records of David Garza.
Among those interviewed were Juan Moreno, the original police officers who
investigated the crime, prosecuting and defense attorneys, trial witnesses, the trial judge,
the jury foreperson, the defense appellate attorney, neighbors of Ruben Cantu from
Briggs Street where the offense occurred, school teachers of both David Garza and Ruben
Cantu, a prison official, and known associates of Ruben Cantu. Cantu’s family members,
including his father, brothers, and sister, were interviewed.

1

Also interviewed were

Both California and Idaho make it a capital offense to commit perjury in the trial of a capital case if that testimony
results in the execution of the defendant. See CAL. PEN. CODE § 128 (2007) (“Every person who, by willful perjury or
subornation of perjury procures the conviction and execution of any innocent person, is punishable by death or life
imprisonment without possibility of parole.”); ID. CODE (2007) § 18-5411 (“Perjury resulting in execution of innocent
person, is punishable by death.”). While it does not appear that convictions under either statute are common, the laws
have been in effect for decades. In fact, the California statute goes back to at least 1872 and the Idaho statute to 1864.
Although Texas does not specifically create a criminal offense for perjurious testimony that leads to an execution, the
thought that a person would intentionally misidentify a person in a capital murder trial and sit silent for two decades,
permitting an innocent person to be executed, is intolerable and could form the basis of a murder charge.

3 of 113

witnesses associated with a related criminal case in which Ruben Cantu was accused of
shooting an off duty police officer. Known associates of Juan Moreno, including his
girlfriend at the time of the offense and trial, whom he later married, were interviewed as
well. Finally, the lead NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund investigator, Richard
Reyna, was interviewed.
C. INVESTIGATION FINDINGS
Based on the review of all of the available evidence, the investigation has
determined that Ruben Cantu made several admissions of his guilt, including confessions
to Ramiro Reyes, Thomas Cooremans, and his statements to officials with the Texas
Department of Corrections during an admission interview. These admissions are highly
probative and usually provide the best evidence of guilt.
Juan Moreno’s initial identification of Ruben Cantu and subsequent testimony
during Cantu’s trial were consistent. Those who witnessed his trial testimony, including
the defense attorneys, the trial judge, and David Garza’s sister all concluded that
Moreno’s testimony was credible. The issue of whether Moreno’s identification of Cantu
was tainted by the procedure utilized by the police in obtaining the identification was
thoroughly litigated at trial and in subsequent appeals, and no court concluded that the
identification was unreliable.
In contrast, Moreno’s current statements about the night of the shooting are vague
and inconsistent. He is now unable to provide any significant detail and cannot positively
identify the shooter, claiming all he is certain about is that one of the two individuals
involved had curly hair (pelo chino) and he is not sure about Cantu’s hair. Not only are
Moreno’s current claims contradicted by his statements before and during the trial, they

4 of 113

directly contradict what he told representatives of the NAACP Legal Defense &
Educational Fund when they began their investigation.
The techniques employed by the investigator for the NAACP Legal Defense &
Educational Fund, Richard Reyna, to obtain Moreno’s current statements were improper
and highly suggestive.

Rather than question Moreno about what he knew, Reyna

provided false information that he contended was true, and did not take Moreno’s initial
statements that he was certain about his identification of Cantu as true. Additionally, the
manner in which the changes to Moreno’s story developed strongly suggests that he was
influenced by misinformation provided by Reyna.

Furthermore, Reyna made direct

payments to Moreno and his wife and provided the family with other benefits.
David Garza’s post execution claims of Ruben Cantu’s innocence likewise are not
credible. Not only has he been inconsistent in his stories from the start, his silence in the
years before and after Cantu’s execution completely undermine his current claim. And
like Moreno, Garza has benefited financially from his assistance with the NAACP Legal
Defense & Educational Fund’s investigation.
The alleged alibi for Ruben Cantu on the night of the capital murder was
presented to and rejected by the jurors who decided Cantu’s guilt.

The additional

witnesses now coming forward provide inconsistent versions of the alibi and offer
nothing concrete to support the claim or undermine the verdict. In addition, no evidence
has been discovered to validate the claims. Evidence from the time of the offense and
statements from Cantu’s own family members establish that Cantu was not, as claimed,
in Waco, Texas on the night of the Briggs Street shooting.

5 of 113

There is no credible evidence that law enforcement officials acted improperly
during their investigation of the Briggs Street shooting. Both Ruben Cantu and David
Garza were developed as suspects early in the investigation. Juan Moreno does not
actually claim that he was pressured to falsely identify Ruben Cantu and there is no other
evidence suggesting that he was.

The claims of improper methods are completely

speculative and are directly contradicted by the official records and current statements of
those involved.
D. CONCLUSION
Based on the available evidence, which has been compromised to some degree by
the passage of nearly two decades since the offense, this investigation concludes that
Ruben Cantu was guilty of the capital murder of Pedro Gomez and the intentional
shooting of Juan Moreno. The claims of Cantu’s innocence, made more than 12 years
after his execution, do not withstand the scrutiny of close review and analysis, and lack
any credible supporting witnesses or verifiable facts.
On the contrary, when the claims supporting Cantu’s asserted alibi that were
capable of verification were investigated, the evidence negated or fatally undermined
Cantu’s alibi. Inextricably coupled with the lack of supporting evidence is the admitted
bias of those asserting Cantu’s innocence and the absence of credibility of Cantu’s
friends and associates who have told various contradictory versions of the story through
the years depending on which version benefited them the most at the time.
Finally, and most convincingly, Ruben Cantu’s admissions of guilt both before
and after his trial and conviction put to rest any reasonable doubt concerning the police

6 of 113

investigation and tactics used, the skills and strategy of the prosecution and defense
attorneys, and the verdict of guilty rendered by an impartial jury.
II. ANALYSIS
What follows is a detailed discussion of the evidence that was discovered and
evaluated pursuant to this investigation. The remainder of the memorandum is divided
into three general sections and a final conclusion. The first section discusses Ruben
Cantu and details his own statements admitting his culpability.

It also offers an

explanation for why Cantu would admit his guilt.
The next section focuses on Juan Moreno and his statements concerning his
identification of Cantu. Moreno’s early statements to the police and his pretrial and trial
testimony are detailed and compared to current claims. The section also details the
NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund’s investigation as it relates to Moreno and
evaluates the methods and techniques employed that resulted in Moreno’s recantation.
In the final section, the claims of Cantu’s innocence, including his alibi, the
NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund and the newspaper’s allegations of police
misconduct, and the statements of David Garza are thoroughly examined. The section
also details the statements of all of the alleged alibi witnesses and the NAACP Legal
Defense & Educational Fund’s attempts to corroborate them. Likewise, the allegations of
police misconduct were fully investigated.

III. RUBEN CANTU―ADMISSIONS OF GUILT
A. INTRODUCTION
Obviously critical to this investigation are any statements that Ruben Cantu might
have made about his involvement in the Briggs Street murder and shooting. Unlike his

7 of 113

codefendant, David Garza, Ruben Cantu cannot say anything now that would undermine
claims that he is innocent. But this does not necessarily mean that everything Cantu has
said about the shooting is consistent. The story, as presented in the pages of the Houston
Chronicle, focuses on Cantu’s post conviction and pre-execution public protestations of
innocence.
The article mentions a letter 2 that Cantu sent to the people of San Antonio in
which he professes his innocence. While dramatic, the letter is certainly not sufficient
evidence that Cantu was innocent. Focusing on Cantu’s public assertions of innocence
certainly makes it easier to argue that he was innocent, but it is fairly common for
convicted criminals to publicly proclaim their innocence. More telling than these public
statements, are the things that they tell their friends, families, and attorneys. A careful
examination of these statements, presents a picture of a man who was anything but
innocent.
B. THE PLEA BARGAIN
Weighing against the current claims of innocence are the things that occurred
behind the scenes between the defense and the prosecution. During the trial, Cantu’s
lawyer, Roland Garcia, approached the Chief of the Felony Section, Raymond Fuchs, and
asked if the prosecution would offer Cantu a plea agreement. 3 Fuchs offered a life

2

This was not the only letter asserting innocence. A typewritten letter purportedly from Ruben Cantu to
the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles contains claims of innocence. Letter, September 14, 1987. A
week later, Cantu sends his attorney, Andrew Carruthers, a handwritten letter in which he explains that the
earlier letter “was made by a friend” and that he “did not know what was said [in the letter] until he got the
copy”. Letter from Ruben Cantu, September 21, 1987. He specifically disavows the earlier letter’s
criticism of his lawyer and reaffirms his confidence in his attorney’s abilities. Id.
3
Sworn Statement of Raymond E. Fuchs, December 6, 2005 (attached as appendix A); Sworn Statement of
Roland Garcia, August 23, 2006 (attached as appendix B).

8 of 113

sentence with no affirmative finding. 4 Garcia relayed the proposed agreement to his
client, and Cantu accepted it. 5 Roy Barrera, Jr., the presiding judge, however, rejected
the agreement. 6 It is worth noting that while Cantu never admitted his involvement in the
capital murder, he never denied it to his lawyer. 7
C. ADMISSION TO RAMIRO REYES
In the days immediately after the murder, Ruben Cantu spoke openly about the
killing and his involvement in it. According to Ramiro Reyes, 8 a childhood friend of
Cantu’s, Cantu admitted that he was responsible for shooting both men on Briggs Street. 9
Although Reyes was deathly afraid of giving a written statement to the police, he told
them what he knew about the murder. 10 Detective Herring noted in his December 13,
1984, meeting with Reyes in a report written at the time:
Ramiro stated he would not give a statement on paper and
sign it because he was afraid of his (sic) being killed by the
subjects [Cantu and Garza]. He stated that Ruben had told
him that he had gone over on Briggs to rob these guys. He
told Ramiro that it was him (sic) that had the gun and that
when he broke in the guy on briggs street went for a gun
but he shot both of the men before they could do anything.
Ramiro stated he had nothing to do with this and never
went with Ruben on this deal and he had only known about
it because Ruben had told him about it. 11

4

Id. It should also be noted that the affirmative finding would impact the length of the sentence that had to
be served before Cantu would have been eligible for parole.
5
Id.
6
Id.
7
Sworn Statement of Roland Garcia, August 23, 2006 (attached as appendix B).
8
Ramiro Reyes is the person Cantu’s codefendant, David Garza, now contends was the other person
involved in the capital murder of Pedro Gomez.
9
Sworn Statement of Ramiro Reyes, March 4, 1985 (attached as appendix C).
10
Supplementary Report of Det. Herring, December 14, 1984.
11
Id; see also Sworn Statement of James Herring, January 31, 2006.

9 of 113

It was not until after Ruben Cantu was in custody, in March of 1985, that Reyes
finally gave a sworn written statement to the police. In this statement, he not only
detailed what Cantu told him about the murder, but he also identified David Garza and
explained why he had up until that point refused to give a written statement. According
to Reyes:
I want to say that in November of 1984, I went to the house
of Ruben Cantu. Ruben lives in a trailer on Briggs St. with
his father. I have known Ruben for about five years. On
this day Ruben and I were talking and he asked me if I had
heard what had happened the night before in front of his
house. I told him I had heard someone had been shot there,
but that is all I knew. He told me it was him that had got
into the house and shot two guys there. He said that he and
a guy by the name of David had gotten into the house
because they wanted to steal something. Ruben then said
one of the guys went for a gun, and that is when Ruben
started shooting. As we were talking Ruben made a motion
with his hands as if [he] was holding a rifle. He also told
me he had used a .22. The other guy, David is a short guy.
He lives on La Violeta. He is a juvenile.
Two Detectives from the Police Dept. took me to the
Homicide Office after this had happened. It was still some
time in November. I told them what I just told you, Det.
Quintanilla, but I asked them not to put it on a statement
form, because I was afraid of Ruben Cantu. He has a lot of
contacts and they could also harm me. 12
Reyes repeated what he knew about Cantu’s involvement to an investigator from
the District Attorney’s Office in April of 1985. 13 He and his mother, who was present at
the time, explained that he was in “fear for his life.”14 In a memo to the file, the
investigator detailed what Cantu said about the murder to Reyes.
Ramiro said he was over drinking some beer and smoking
some weed on Saturday, November 10, after the shooting.
12

Sworn Statement of Ramiro Reyes, March 4, 1985 (attached as appendix C).
Memo of K. E. Thuleen, April 15, 1985.
14
Id.
13

10 of 113

Ramiro said out of the clear Ruben started telling him how
he went over to break into the house across the street to
steal something. He said Ruben said that he had to shoot
them. Ramiro said he felt that Ruben didn’t know anyone
was there. 15
Despite this admission from Cantu, even Reyes was initially doubtful that Cantu
was being truthful. He told Cantu that he did not believe him and Cantu responded, “I
did it, I really shot them.” 16
Reyes also testified under oath at a pretrial suppression hearing and questioned by
Cantu’s trial lawyer. 17 During this hearing, Reyes testified, with both Ruben and Robert
Cantu present, that Ruben told him that he did the shooting and that is what Reyes told
the police. 18 Reyes did this in open court even though he was afraid and had been told by
his brother, Eugene, that Robert Cantu would kill him if he testified. 19
When recently contacted, Reyes reaffirmed that Cantu confessed his involvement
in the murder of Gomez and shooting of Moreno. 20

He also noted that Cantu had

threatened to kill him if he ever told anyone. 21 Even more than twenty years after he first
spoke to the police, Reyes has not changed his story. In addition, Reyes was given a
polygraph examination in 1985 and the results indicate that he was being truthful when
he said he was not involved in the shooting. 22
D. ADMISSION TO THOMAS COOREMANS
Reyes was not the only one with whom Cantu talked about the murder.
Following the front-page article written in the San Antonio Express-News and its
15

Id.
Id.
17
Ct. R. vol. I of X, at 151-77.
18
Id. at 165 & 169.
19
Id. at 159 & 176.
20
Sworn Statement of Ramiro Reyes, December 9, 2005.
21
Id.
22
Memo of K. E. Thuleen, April 17, 1985.
16

11 of 113

coverage, the Bexar County Criminal District Attorney’s Office received a letter in
August of 2006 from Thomas Cooremans. The letter contained information, which was
not known to the general public nor contained in the newspaper articles. Cooremans was
from the same neighborhood and has known the Cantu brothers since the early 1980s. 23
Cooremans said he has never had any problems with Ruben Cantu. 24 According to
Cooremans, Cantu confessed the crime to him in 1985. 25
Cooremans was in the old Bexar County jail in 1985 and ran into Ruben Cantu,
who was a trustee in the jail at the time awaiting trial on his capital murder charge.26 In
addition to talking to Cooremans about the charges related to the De La Luz shooting,
Cantu also told him about the capital murder of Pedro Gomez.
Ruben explained he’d been charged with the capital murder
of a wetback on Briggs Street. He said he had stolen two
trucks from the same house on Briggs Street and had gone
back for a third truck. He said he’d gone in the house and
saw a rifle, a 22, and had picked it up. Ruben said the rifle
was propped up against a wall next to two sleeping bags.
He said he saw two wetbacks in the sleeping bags. He told
me he picked up the rifle and cocked it. One of the
wetbacks heard the noise and reached for something he, the
wetback, had under his sleeping bag. Ruben said he
assumed it was a gun and said, “I shot that guy.
Motherfucker”. The noise woke up the other guy who had
been asleep. Ruben said he shot this guy too. He told me
he did not know which one he’d killed. He didn’t say
whether he was alone or with another person. Ruben said
that he took the 22 rifle and the gun the wetback had. I
thought to myself Ruben was very young to be doing stuff
like that. I guess he wanted to be like his brothers. 27

23

Sworn Statement of Thomas L. Cooremans, August 23, 2006.
Id.
25
Id.
26
Id.
27
Id.
24

12 of 113

At the time he gave his statement, Cooremans was in the Bexar County Jail,
awaiting trial for DWI 3rd. Cooremans was not promised anything in return for his
statement. 28 His stated reason for coming forward with this information now is that he
believes that “the case, like Ruben should be put to rest.” 29 As he states, “I think Ruben
should be allowed to rest in peace for his sake and that of his family.” 30
E. ADMISSION TO PRISON OFFICIALS
Interestingly, during his admission interview with officials of the Texas
Department of Corrections after his capital murder conviction, Cantu did not deny his
involvement, but rather implicated himself in the capital murder. During this interview,
Cantu talked about Garza, his codefendant, and explained that they had been and still
were friends. 31 He described the victim, Pedro Gomez, and described the weapon used as
a .22 caliber rifle. 32 More importantly, however, when asked to explain the rationale for
the offense, Cantu said, “it was a robbery.” 33

As is evident from Garza’s prison

admission interview form, 34 inmates are not required to give information about the
underlying offense. Cantu did not have to explain the crime, he could have said, “I
wasn’t there”, but he did give details and in doing so added one more piece of evidence
undercutting any claims that he was innocent.

28

Id.
Id.
30
Id.
31
TDC Inmate Consolidated Record Form (attached as appendix D).
32
Id.
33
Id.
34
Garza refused to give any information about the offense.
29

13 of 113

F. OTHER EVIDENCE OF GUILT
Although family members of Cantu, like his brothers Larry and Robert, assert that
Ruben denied his involvement to them, 35 these same members say he also told them that
he did not know who did it. 36 These self-serving denials contrast dramatically with
Cantu’s other actions and statements. For example, there was a card Cantu sent to David
Garza’s mother while he was in prison for the capital murder. While the card itself no
longer exists, Garza’s sister, Nora Alejandro, summarized its contents for Richard Reyna,
the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund’s investigator, during his investigation.
According to Nora, Cantu apologized for getting David in trouble. 37 There would be no
need to apologize, if Cantu had not been directly involved.
G. REASON FOR THE ADMISSIONS
It may be difficult for some to understand why a person would admit his
involvement in a capital murder. To understand why Cantu would do this, you have to
understand the kind of person Cantu was and the world he lived in. One of his teachers,
Robert Sidle, who had known him since he was in elementary school and knew his
brothers, said that Ruben came from a dysfunctional home. 38
The vice-principal of his high school, Richard Calhoun, recalled that Cantu was a
problem and had been disciplined for fighting. 39 According to Calhoun, “Ruben always

35

While Robert Cantu claims that Ruben denied his involvement, he told a different story when he talked
about Ruben’s involvement in the capital murder and Ruben’s death sentence with one of his prison mates.
According to the source, “Robert said that Ruben took his father’s gun [a] .22 rifle from the house and
Ruben and a friend went to a house and did a burglary, they shot a guy and killed another guy.” Sworn
Statement of a Confidential Informant, August 31, 2006.
36
Sworn Statement of Larry Cantu, August 24, 2006.
37
Sworn Statement of Nora Garza Alejandro, August 22, 2006.
38
Interview with Robert Sidle, August 17, 2006.
39
Sworn Statement of Richard Calhoun, August 10, 2006.

14 of 113

felt that he had an image to maintain as he was a member of a neighborhood gang called
the Grey Eagles.” 40
Eloy Gonzales, one of Cantu’s friends and alleged witness to his alibi, similarly
describes him. According to Gonzales, Cantu “was small and skinny, but he didn’t take
any shit from anybody.” 41 He was a “wild kid.” 42

Ruben was known to carry a 9mm

or .25 automatic weapons and “liked to brag about the people that he shot”. 43 He would
“pull his gun” on anyone who disagreed with him and would not “hesitate to shoot
someone at the drop of a hat.” 44 Additionally, Ramiro Reyes said that when Cantu
became intoxicated, whether from alcohol or other drugs, “he became overbearing and
pushy.” 45
Cantu worked hard to cultivate his reputation and it was clear that people were
afraid of him. Based on his actions, Cantu must have believed that no one would ever
turn him in for the crime. Sandra Lopez, who lived in the neighborhood, had heard about
Cantu breaking into other homes on Briggs Street. 46 According to Lopez:
I had already heard about the Cantu’s (sic) breaking into
the other homes over on Briggs. Actually, the owner of the
house where the murder occurred had come over to my
dad’s house before the murder and was complaining about
the Cantu’s (sic) breaking into his house. He complained
to my dad that he could not get the house finished, because
they would take all the materials. He told my dad that no
one in the neighborhood would turn the Cantu’s (sic) in,
because everyone was scared to death. 47
40

Id.
Sworn Statement of Eloy Hernandez Gonzalez, March 29, 2006.
42
Id.
43
Richard Reyna Interview with Eloy Gonzales, detailed in April 30, 2004 letter to Ruth Friedman. Ruth
Friedman is an attorney working with the NAACP LDF and Richard Reyna. Reyna documents much of his
investigation in letters sent to Ms. Friedman.
44
Id.
45
Memo of K. E. Thuleen, April 15, 1985.
46
Sworn Statement of Sandra Lopez, August 2, 2006.
47
Id.
41

15 of 113

In addition, Cantu had already been charged and tried for attempted murder in
March of 1984. Although the victim had given a sworn statement to police detailing
Cantu’s crime, at trial he recanted and Cantu was acquitted. 48 Cantu was also implicated
in other homicides, shootings, and assaults, but witnesses would not identify him because
they were scared. 49 It is hard to imagine how this would not have emboldened him.
Given the uniformity of Cantu’s private statements and actions around those whom he
knew and trusted, it is clear that this is strong evidence of Cantu’s guilt. This evidence is
completely independent of Juan Moreno’s identification of Cantu.

IV. JUAN MORENO―THE EYEWITNESS
A. INTRODUCTION
Attorneys for Juan Moreno set up a press conference on November 30, 2005, at
their office, to showcase their client’s alleged recantation. This occurred immediately
after an orchestrated and emotionally charged meeting with Ruben Cantu’s mother. In
this press conference, Moreno, who only spoke in Spanish, contends that Ruben Cantu
was not the person who shot him and murdered Pedro Gomez. Moreno further asserts
that he had always told the police that the man who shot him and Gomez had curly hair
(pelo chino) and that he does not think he was ever shown a photograph with a man with
curly hair (pelo chino). When asked by a reporter why he identified Cantu during the
trial, his response was that it was “because he could have been pressured.” 50 Moreno
also contends that he is not in favor of the death penalty.

48

Cause No. 83-JUV-0841.
Ct. R. vol. X of X, at 2813-14.
50
He also described feeling pressure during the press conference.
49

16 of 113

Available on-line at the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund 51 website 52
is a videotaped interview that their investigator, Richard Reyna, conducted with Juan
Moreno on February 13, 2005.
man was executed.

During this interview, Moreno asserts that an innocent

Moreno claims that he told police investigators from the very

beginning that the person that shot him and Pedro Gomez in November of 1984 had curly
hair (pelo chino). He also says that this person was never in the photographs shown to
him by the police. He claims that he was never scared during the interviews with the
police. Further, he asserts that he does not remember whether his statement was ever
read to him before he signed it.
The claims that Moreno made during the press conference and during the Reyna
interview are dramatic, but the method in which they were given does little to place the
statements in context or to provide any information that would allow them to be
corroborated. The claims also do nothing to explain his original identification of Cantu
to the police, his numerous in court identifications, nor his twenty years of silence before
and after Cantu’s execution.
These sessions do not reveal that in his initial contacts with representatives of the
NAACP LDF, including Richard Reyna, he maintained that Cantu was the man who shot
him. Nor is it revealed that both Moreno and his wife received direct monetary payments
and other compensation from the NAACP LDF.

In order to fairly examine and

evaluate Moreno’s current claims, they must be placed in context and compared to what
he initially did and said about the crime. In addition, the current recantation must be
evaluated and the mechanism through which it was first made must be examined.

51
52

Hereinafter “NAACP LDF.”
www.naacpldf.org.

17 of 113

B. MORENO’S STATEMENTS TO THE POLICE
THE NIGHT OF THE MURDER― NOVEMBER 8, 1984
Such an examination logically begins with his very first statements to the police
the night of the shooting. One of the first officers to arrive on the scene the night of the
shooting, November 8, 1984, was San Antonio Police Officer, Richard Sanchez. 53 He
arrived at approximately 11:48 p.m. and found the wounded Moreno inside of a truck
parked at 613 Briggs Street. 54 Because Officer Sanchez speaks Spanish, he was able to
speak with Moreno, who told the officer “two Latin males that live next door had shot
him.” 55 While Moreno told him that he did not know their names, he did “know them by
face.” 56 Moreno also told the officer that they were “Chicanos,” that is United States
citizens, and not illegals. 57 No other description was given.
THE INITIAL PHOTOGRAPHIC LINEUPS―NOVEMBER & DECEMBER 1984
Six days after the shooting, Detective James Herring along with Detective John
Rivas went to speak with Moreno in the hospital while he was still recovering from his
injuries. 58

Because Moreno was a Spanish speaker, Detective Rivas translated for

Detective Herring. 59 Moreno could barely talk, but he did give a general description of
the people involved. 60 According to Moreno, they were both Latin males, one was 13 or
14, and the other was 19. 61

He believed he had seen the younger one around the

53

Sworn Statement of Richard R. Sanchez, June 2, 2006.
Id.; see also Assignment Report of R. Sanchez, November 8, 1984.
55
Id. (emphasis added).
56
Id.
57
Id.
58
Supplementary Report of Det. J. Herring, November 9, 1984.
59
Id.
60
Id.
61
Id.
54

18 of 113

neighborhood. 62 There was no description of any sort of hair type. 63 During their initial
contact with Moreno at the hospital, the detectives presented seven photo lineups to him,
which included individuals who lived in the neighborhood. 64 Ruben Cantu’s picture was
not included in any of the lineups and Moreno did not make any identifications.65
On November 25, 1984, Detective Herring received information that Ruben Cantu
and David Garza were involved in the murder. 66

On December 1, 1984, the detective

received information from a teacher implicating as possible suspects Cantu, Garza, and
Reyes. Based on this information, a second attempt was made on December 16, 1984, to
see if Moreno could identify anyone. A photo lineup was prepared that included Cantu’s
picture. Again, however, Moreno did not identify anyone from the photographs shown to
him and did not provide any further identifying information. 67

Based on his body

language and how he averted his eyes, the officers noted that Moreno appeared to
purposely avoid the picture of Ruben Cantu. 68

It was obvious to the detectives that

Moreno “was scared and was not going to pick the actor out.” 69
SUBSEQUENT LINEUPS―MARCH 2-5, 1985
Nearly four months after the shooting, in March of 1985, Moreno finally
identified Cantu from a photo lineup. On March 2, 1985, Detective Santos Balleza went
to Juan Moreno’s brother’s house and showed Moreno a photo lineup containing Cantu’s

62

Id.
Id.
64
Id.
65
Id.
66
Supplementary Report of Det. J. Herring, December 14, 1984. Det. Herring does not note in his original
report the source of the information. In a recent sworn written statement, he states that, to the best of his
recollection, this information came from a patrol officer.
67
Id.
68
Id.
69
Id.
63

19 of 113

photo. 70

Moreno told Detective Balleza that he did not recognize anyone in the

photographs. 71 Detective Balleza observed that Moreno was “scared and visibly shaken”
and did not want to identify the shooter. 72 The next day, Detective Quintanilla went to
visit Juan Moreno and talked to him about coming to the police station to view a lineup.
Moreno went to the station with his brother Eusebio. 73 Moreno admitted to Detective
Quintanilla that he had recognized the shooter in the photo lineup that Detective Balleza
showed him the day before but he did not tell Detective Balleza because he was afraid of
Cantu. 74 It was at this time that Moreno identified the picture of the person that shot him
and Pedro Gomez. 75 Detective Quintanilla told Moreno that the picture he identified was
of Ruben Cantu. 76 Moreno acknowledged the identification by signing and dating the
back of Cantu’s photograph. 77
Moreno gave a sworn written statement in which he not only detailed the crime,
but also explained why he himself had not identified Cantu during the previous photo
lineup he was shown.

Moreno was afraid of reprisal. 78 According to Moreno at the

time:
On March 2, 1985 Det. Balleza came to my house and he
showed me five color pictures of Mexican men. I
recognized one of the pictures of one of the men he showed
70

Ct. R. vol. IX of X, at 2588-91.
Ct. R. vol. IX of X, at 2591; Supplementary Report of Det. E. Quintanilla, March 3, 1985.
72
Ct. R. vol. IX of X, at 2593.
73
Sworn Statement of Eusebio Alanis Moreno, March 3, 1985 (attached as appendix E); see also Sworn
Statement of Edward Quintanilla, January 31, 2006.
74
Supplementary Report of Det. E. Quintanilla, March 3, 1985 (attached as appendix F).
75
Id.; see also Sworn Statement of Juan Moreno, March 3, 1985 (attached as appendix G); Sworn
Statement of Edward Quintanilla, January 31, 2006.
76
Id.
77
Id. The lineup shows that Moreno signed and dated the back of Ruben Cantu’s picture (attached as
appendix H).
78
It is clear from his testimony that his biggest fear was that somehow Cantu and Garza would find out
where he lived. He wanted assurances that he would be safe before he made the identification. Sgt. Ewell
informed Moreno that Cantu was in jail for the De La Luz shooting and that he had no way of knowing
where Moreno currently lived. Supplementary Report of W.R. Ewell, March 3, 1985.
71

20 of 113

me as being the same man who shot Pedro and me that
night. I did not want to tell Det. Balleza who it was
because I am afraid and I feared for my family. Today, you
Det. Quintanilla asked me if I had recognized anyone in the
photos Det. Balleza showed me and I told you yes. You
showed me the same photos and I picked out the one who
did the shooting. You told me his name was Ruben Cantu.
This is the man who shot Pedro and me. I put my name on
the back of his picture and also the time and date. I would
also like to say that the night of the shooting there was a
light on in the house and I got a good look at this man, but I
did not get a good look at the other man that was with
him. 79
After identifying Cantu, Moreno told Detective Quintanilla that he might be able to
identify the second person involved, but that he did not get a good look at that person. 80
Similarly, Moreno’s brother Eusebio told the officers that he believed that his
brother had initially been afraid to identify the shooter. Eusebio explains: “IN MY
OPINION, JUAN DID NOT WANT TO IDENTIFY THE PICTURE OF THE MAN
THAT WAS INVOLVED IN THE MURDER OF PEDRO AS JUAN IS AFRAID OF
THIS MAN BECAUSE JUAN WAS ALSO SHOT IN THIS INCIDENT AND JUAN
ALMOST DIED ALSO.” 81
Two days later, on March 5, 1985, Moreno was shown a photo lineup that, for the
first time, contained David Garza’s picture. 82

When presented with a lineup that

included Garza’s picture, Moreno was easily able to identify Garza.83 In a sworn written
statement given at the time, Moreno explained the identification process.
YOU, DET. QUINTANILLA, CAME TO MY HOUSE
WITH DET. RIVAS, AND YOU SHOWED FIVE
79

Sworn Statement of Juan Moreno, March 3, 1985 (attached as appendix G).
Id.; see also Supplementary Report of Det. E. Quintanilla, March 5, 1985 (attached as appendix I).
81
Sworn Statement of Eusebio Alanis Moreno, March 3, 1985 (attached as appendix E).
82
Supplementary Report of Det. E. Quintanilla, March 5, 1985 (attached as appendix I). The lineup shows
that Juan Moreno signed and dated the back of David Garza’s picture (attached as appendix J).
83
Id. Despite two decades of denials by David Garza, he now admits that Moreno’s identification was
accurate as he admits his involvement in the Briggs Street capital murder.
80

21 of 113

COLOR PICTURES OF FIVE LATIN AMERICAN
MALES AND YOU ASKED ME IF I COULD
RECOGNIZE ANY OF THE PERSONS SHOWN ON
ANY ONE OF THESE PICTURES. I LOOKED AT THE
FIVE PICTURES AND I PICKED UP THE PICTURE OF
THE ONE THAT I DID RECOGNIZE AND YOU
ASKED ME IF I RECOGNIZED THIS PICTURE THAT I
HAD PICKED UP AND I TOLD YOU THAT I DID
RECOGNIZE THE PERSON IN THIS PICTURE. I
WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT THIS IS A PICTURE OF
ONE OF THE MEN THAT IN THE EARLY PART OF
NOVEBER, 1984, WAS THERE AT 605 BRIGGS WITH
THE OTHER MAN THAT SHOT ME AND PEDRO
GOMEZ. THIS IS ALSO THE SAME PERSON THAT
TOOK THE WALLET FROM PEDRO, WHEN THE
OTHER MAN WITH THE RIFLE TOLD PEDRO TO
GIVE THEM HIS WALLET. YOU THEN TOLD ME
THAT THE NAME OF THE PERSON IN THIS
PICTURE THAT I IDENTIFIED TODAY IS DAVID
GARZA AND HE LIVES ON LA VIOLETTA (sic). 84
At no point during any of his interactions with the police, do any law enforcement
personnel recall Moreno ever describing the shooter as having curly hair (pelo chino).
This identifying characteristic of curly hair (pelo chino) is not noted in any of the police
reports or supplemental police reports prepared at the time of original Briggs Street
shooting investigation and it was not mentioned in any of Moreno’s sworn written
statements or in his in court testimony. 85
MEETING WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S INVESTIGATOR
In addition to the interviews with police officers, Moreno and his brother also
later met with representatives from the District Attorney’s Office. During this meeting,
Moreno gave detailed accounts of the crime. Kenneth Thuleen, a retired police detective
84

Sworn Statement of Juan Moreno, March 5, 1985 (attached as appendix K).
It should be noted that at the time of the shooting Cantu had wavy hair (pelo ondulado), as opposed to
curly hair (pelo chino). No effort was made to distinguish the difference because this was not raised as an
issue until Moreno’s statements to Reyna in 2004. Ruben Cantu’s hair can be clearly seen in KSAT’s
television news file footage of Cantu’s arrest. It can also be clearly seen in a Bexar County Sheriff’s
Department booking photograph dated March 12, 1985 (attached as appendix L).
85

22 of 113

with over twenty-five years of experience, was employed by the Bexar County District
Attorney’s Office as a Criminal Investigator from 1983 until 1996. He interviewed Juan
Moreno and his brother, Eusebio, in early April of 1985, which was prior to Cantu’s
indictment and capital murder trial.

Investigator Thuleen documented Moreno’s

recounting of the crime:
Juan said he and Pedro had gone to sleep. He said both
wore their watches to bed. Juan said he was awakened by
someone pulling on his wrist. He said he was forced to get
up and he saw a taller one holding a rifle. He said he later
found this one to be Ruben Cantu whom he had seen walk
by the house. 86
The shorter one whom he later found to be David Garza
didn’t have any weapon. Juan said that Garza was the one
who took Pedro’s wallet which had approximately $600.00
in it.
Juan also said that they (Cantu and Garza) had taken their
watches before they woke him up. Ruben then made Pedro
lift the mattress so they could see if they had comething
(sic) under it. This is where the pistol was wrapped in a
cloth. Pedro reached for the weapon and Ruben Cantu
started shooting. 87
Juan Moreno said he doesn’t remember hearing Pedro or
Ruben say anything. Juan said he saw what looked like a
bullet hole in Pedro’s head. Ruben then turned the rifle
toward him and started shooting at him for no reason. Juan
said he didn’t say anything or try to run. Juan said he was
hit 9 times, Pedro had been hit 8 times. 88
In addition, he noted that, “Juan felt that they intended to shoot them when they came
in.” 89

86

During a pretrial hearing in Cantu’s case, Moreno testified that he had seen Cantu walking past the house
on two or three prior occasions. Ct. R. vol. II of X, at 317 & 328.
87
This is consistent with Cantu’s admission to prison officials that the incident was only supposed to be a
robbery.
88
Memo of K. E. Thuleen, April 8, 1985.
89
Id.

23 of 113

Importantly, Moreno does not recant his identification of Ruben Cantu or
otherwise equivocate in his statement to a different, independent agency. Likewise,
Investigator Thuleen does not note any apprehension on the part of Moreno. Not only
does the account Moreno provided to Investigator Thuleen support his earlier statements
to the police officers investigating the murder, there is still no mention of anyone with
curly hair (pelo chino) being involved.
C. THE CERTAINTY OF THE IDENTIFICATION DURING THE COURT PROCEEDINGS
In any event, whatever pressure Moreno now alludes to having felt during the
initial photographic identification was certainly nothing compared to what he received
from the defense lawyers during the course of the trial proceedings.
DAVID GARZA’S EXAMINING TRIAL
Moreno first testified during the examining trial of Cantu’s codefendant, David
Garza, on June 14, 1985. During this testimony, he positively identified both Garza and
Cantu as being involved. 90 Moreno also affirms that he had seen the two suspects before
two or three times walking by and knew them by sight. 91
During the cross examination by Garza’s lawyer, Moreno repeatedly testified that
Ruben Cantu is the person who shot him and Pedro Gomez. 92 He insisted that he had not
lied and that he told the police the truth when he made the identification. 93 Moreno
testified that he had no problem picking out the picture of Ruben Cantu. 94
Importantly, Moreno was shown his sworn written statements and he
acknowledged that they were the only written statements that he had given to the police
90

Cause No. 85-JUV-00282, Examining Trial, vol. I of I, at 18-19 & 21.
Id. at 14.
92
Id. at 28, 30, 31, 48, 51, & 52.
93
Id. at 32-34.
94
Id. at 38.
91

24 of 113

and that they had written down what he had said. 95 These statements were translated and
read to him during the proceeding. 96 He testified that the statements were the truth. 97 He
also testified that the prosecutors told him that he was supposed to tell the truth. 98
David Garza’s defense attorney was Fred Rodriguez.

Rodriguez was an

experienced attorney, who had served for many years as an Assistant District Attorney
and as an Assistant United States Attorney before entering private practice. He defeated
Sam Millsap, the District Attorney at the time of the Cantu indictment and trial, and
became District Attorney on January 1, 1987. As a result, he was in office before
Cantu’s direct appeal was decided and when Cantu’s State writ of habeas corpus was
filed. If he had any reason to doubt Cantu’s guilt, during the four years as District
Attorney, he would have had the power to open an investigation or refer one to a special
prosecutor or the Attorney General. He recused himself in the matter of David Garza’s
writ of habeas corpus and a special prosecutor was appointed.
RUBEN CANTU’S SUPPRESSION HEARING
Less than a month after the above hearing, Moreno testified at a pretrial
suppression hearing in Cantu’s case. The defense was claiming that the police had used
suggestive identification procedures that tainted Moreno’s identification of Cantu. At the
hearing Moreno was shaking and was nervous. 99
He again testified that he had seen both Ruben Cantu and David Garza prior to the
shooting. 100 Moreno testified that although he did not know Cantu’s name, he knew him

95

Id. at 24-25.
Id. at 47.
97
Id. at 46.
98
Id. at 40.
99
Ct. R. vol. II of X, at 305-06.
100
Id. at 313 & 317.
96

25 of 113

“by sight, because he would go by there… .” 101 He had seen Cantu two or three times
before the shooting, during the daytime, and could see the side and front of his face. 102
When asked if he saw Ruben Cantu on November 8, 1984 and at what location, Moreno
answered, “where he shot at us.” 103 Importantly, he positively identified Cantu in the
courtroom. 104
Moreno testified that he did not recall the officers ever telling him that the person
who did the shooting was among the photographs in the lineup. 105 He repeatedly denied
that the police told him that Cantu was the man who shot him. 106 And he testified that
the reason he selected Cantu’s picture from the lineup was because “they were the ones
that had fired at us there.” 107 Under oath, he confirmed the police accounts of the
identification process and remained steadfast in his identification of Cantu.
According to Moreno, the officer spent no more than fifteen minutes with him
during their meetings. 108

During these meetings, the officers “would only ask

questions.” 109 He was never promised anything for making the identification, but they
did tell him that Cantu would never be told where Moreno was living. 110 During the
questioning, Moreno also demonstrated how the lineup was presented to him by taking a
group of five pictures and placing them in row so that all five could be seen. 111

101

Id. at 317.
Id. at 327-28.
103
Id. at 315.
104
Id. at 324-25.
105
Id. at 310.
106
Id. at 319.
107
Id.
108
Id. at 322.
109
Id.
110
Id. at 322-23.
111
Id. at 320.
102

26 of 113

Moreno was also asked why he initially did not identify Cantu, and he answered
that he did not want Cantu and Garza to know where he was living. 112 Thus, Moreno
himself confirms the police and Eusebio’s belief that he knew who shot him but was
afraid to identify him.
RUBEN CANTU’S CAPITAL MURDER TRIAL
During Cantu’s trial, Moreno positively identified Ruben Cantu as the shooter. 113
He reaffirmed that he had seen Cantu in the weeks before the murder at least three
times. 114 He testified that he had no difficulty in seeing Cantu and Garza’s faces. 115 In
fact, he also identified David Garza during the trial as the person with Cantu at the time
of the shooting. 116
He recalled being shown the photographic lineups by the police officers and, even
though Cantu’s picture had been in more than one lineup, Moreno explained that he did
not identify Cantu because he was afraid. 117 He also explained that he did not want to
look at Cantu’s picture because of what Cantu had done to him. 118 Even though Cantu
did not know where he was living, Moreno believed he could find out. 119 As Moreno
explained, he was sure that Cantu was the shooter, but he avoided identifying him
because he “didn’t want to get into any problems.” 120

112

Id. at 318.
Ct. R. vol. VIII of X, at 2388 & 2402-03.
114
Id. at 2393-95. Eusebio also corroborates this as he too testified that he had seen Cantu walking down
Briggs Street three to five times while they were building the house on Briggs Street. Id. at 2188-89. He
even positively identified Cantu during the trial. Id. at 2187. This is also initially what Moreno told the
investigator from the NAACP LDF when first contacted about the case in August of 2004. Letter to Ruth
Friedman, August 23, 2004.
115
Id. at 2397.
116
Id.
117
Id. at 2473-74 & 2490.
118
Id. at 2512.
119
Id. at 2490.
120
Id. at 2514.
113

27 of 113

Admittedly, it is difficult to read a cold record two decades after testimony was
given and assess the credibility of a witness. But those that were present and observed
Moreno’s in court testimony uniformly characterize his identification of Cantu as certain
and credible.

The lead prosecutor, Bruce Baxter, described Moreno’s testimony

identifying Cantu as the shooter at both the pretrial hearing and at trial before the jury as
without hesitation. 121 Even, Andrew Carruthers, 122 one of Cantu’s lawyers, described
Moreno’s testimony as “certain” and “unequivocal.” 123 Likewise, Cantu’s other lawyer,
Roland Garcia, 124 has stated that Moreno did not hesitate and “was positive in his
identification of Ruben Cantu.” 125
Roy Barrera Jr., the judge who presided over Cantu’s trial, contends, based on his
review of the record, that “Moreno was unequivocal, clear, and in my mind certain as to
the identity of the individual who committed the offense of capital murder.” 126 Barrera’s
impression was that Moreno’s identification of Cantu was based primarily on the
shooting and his prior encounters with Cantu, and not on the photographic display. 127
Perhaps most telling is the opinion of Nora Alejandro, David Garza’s sister. She
attended Cantu’s trial and witnessed Moreno’s testimony. Being the sister of Cantu’s
codefendant, she would understandably be looking for any signs of inconsistency or any

121

Sworn Statement of Bruce F. Baxter, August 18, 2006 (attached as appendix M).
Carruthers had approximately 12 years experience practicing law and was board certified in criminal
law at the time of the trial.
123
Sworn Statement of Andrew W. Carruthers, August 18, 2006.
124
Garcia had been practicing law approximately 5 years, two of which were as an Assistant District
Attorney, and had tried a capital murder case as a prosecutor.
125
Sworn Statement of Roland Garcia, August 23, 2006 (attached as appendix B).
126
Sworn Statement of Roy Barrera Jr., August 10, 2006.
127
Id.
122

28 of 113

other problems with Moreno’s testimony. But even she acknowledged that Moreno,
although young and scared, “appeared credible when he testified.” 128
Ultimately, the audience whose opinion mattered most, that of the jury, believed
Moreno to be truthful. However difficult it might be for us to review the transcript from
the trial and try to assess the truthfulness of Moreno’s testimony from a cold written
record, it in no way substitutes for the face-to-face observation of the jury who swore to
an oath and actually sat in judgment of Ruben Cantu.

The jury knew about Moreno’s

initial hesitation to identify Cantu and was aware of how the identification was made.
Nonetheless, based on the strength of Moreno’s identification and the surrounding
circumstances presented at trial, they found Ruben Cantu guilty of capital murder beyond
a reasonable doubt.
All of Moreno’s pretrial and trial testimony was consistent with the statements he
had earlier given the police and the District Attorney’s investigator. He reviewed his
sworn written statements and was given several opportunities throughout the course of
the proceedings to say that he was unsure of the identification or to expose any police
tactic that may have suggested that Cantu was the shooter.

Despite this, Moreno

steadfastly maintained that the shooter was Cantu and that he was certain in his
identification. If there was the slightest bit of doubt to Moreno’s identification of Cantu,
it does not appear that way from his sworn written statements, his in court testimony, or
from the twenty years of Moreno’s silence after the trial.
D. THE NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND INVESTIGATION
After investigating the conclusions contained within the Houston Chronicle
articles, one fact was inescapable⎯all of the points used to suggest Ruben Cantu’s
128

Sworn Statement of Nora Garza Alejandro, August 22, 2006.

29 of 113

innocence were “discovered” by one person, Richard Reyna. Reyna was employed by
the NAACP LDF to investigate the Ruben Cantu case. It was in this capacity that Reyna
met with potential witnesses and why he eventually contacted David Garza and Juan
Moreno. It was to him that they all made new statements that claimed to exonerate
Ruben Cantu.

Reyna billed the organization over $100,000 for his investigative

services. 129
The first attempt, made by an attorney, to get Moreno to speak failed. Later, the
NAACP LDF employed Richard Reyna to work the investigation. Within a year of the
commencement of his investigation, not only had he developed the basis for the position
that Ruben Cantu was wrongfully put to death, he had convinced David Garza to publicly
admit his guilt and proclaim Cantu’s innocence.

The group needed more than the

statements of convicted felons to support the serious claim of a wrongful execution.
Thus, Reyna began to focus on the surviving eyewitness, Juan Moreno.
Unfortunately for those persons intent on proclaiming Cantu’s innocence, Reyna
did not conduct an investigation in the normal sense of that term.

Rather, his

investigative techniques demonstrate that he set out with preconceived notions about
Cantu’s innocence and he employed methods and interview techniques designed to
further that goal. Whether this was intentional or inadvertent is irrelevant. The fact is
that his methods render the information he obtained suspect⎯it simply cannot be trusted.
This conclusion is based on Reyna’s own records, subpoenaed as part of this
investigation, in which he details how he obtained statements from the relevant parties.
These records include his own investigative reports, notes, and letters to the NAACP

129

Billing Records of Richard Reyna.

30 of 113

LDF and illustrate his methodology. Reyna’s conduct has so tainted his investigation as
to render any resulting conclusions unreliable.
Generally, there have been commentators who have criticized various law
enforcement agencies for utilizing investigative techniques with suspects that are claimed
to elicit false confessions. 130 Furthermore, commentators have noted that, “it is relatively
easy to alter an eyewitness’s reliability and accuracy by pressuring the eyewitness with
leading or misleading information. 131

In fact, there is “extensive literature suggesting

that leading questions have the potential to distort eyewitness memory.” 132 Furthermore,
“the type of individual who provides the misleading information can have an important
effect on a witness’s response.” 133

Not surprisingly, research has revealed that an

eyewitness’s ability to accurately recall an incident can be impacted adversely by who is
asking the questions, the types of questions asked, and the amount of time between the
actual witnessing of the event and the interview. 134
Because of these perceived problems, many psychologists have called for reform
and transparency in the interview and the interrogation process. 135 As a result, many law
enforcement agencies have restructured suspect interviews and interrogations. In many
130

See e.g., Saul M. Kassin & Gisili H. Gudjonsson, The Psychology of Confessions―A Review of the
Literature and Issues, Vol. 5, No. 2 PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST 33, 36-56 (2004);
see also Saul M. Kassin, Christine C. Goldstein, & Kenneth Savitsky, Behavioral Confirmation in the
Interrogation Room: On the Dangers of Presuming Guilt, Vol. 27, No 2 LAW AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR 187
(April 2003); Jacqueline Hodgson, Adding Injury to Injustice: The Suspect at the Police Station, Vol. 21,
NO. 1 JOURNAL OF LAW AND SOCIETY 85 (1994).
131
Norman J. Bregman & Hunter A. McAllister, Eyewitness Testimony: The Role of Commitment in
Increasing Reliability, Vol. 45, No. 3 Social Psychology Quarterly 181, 181 (1982).
132
Mark R. Kebbell & Shane D. Johnson, Lawyers Questioning: The Effect of Confusing Questions on
Witness Confidence and Accuracy, Vol. 24, No. 6 LAW AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR 629, 638 (2000) (citing
E.F. Loftus, Leading questions and eyewitness report, 7 COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 560 (1975)).
133
Id.
134
See William S. Cassel & David F. Bjorklund, Developmental Patterns of Eyewitness Memory and
Suggestibility: An Ecologically Based Short-Term Study, Vol. 19, No. 5 Law and Human Behavior 507,
521-23 (1995).
135
See generally Psychology of Confessions, at 60 (calling for the videotaped recording of all suspect
interviews and interrogations).

31 of 113

instances, the San Antonio Police Department now digitally records statements given by
a witness or a suspect to police officers. Moreover, in order to receive state certification,
a peace officer is required to participate in the basic peace officer’s course. During this
course, the officers are taught various interview and interrogation techniques. 136

These

techniques mandate that witnesses be treated differently than suspects, that the
interviewer use direct questions toward establishing the facts of the incident, and that the
interviewer avoid leading or suggestive questions. 137 The interviewer should permit the
interviewee to provide a complete narrative of the incident, before confronting the person
with discrepancies with known facts. 138
The problems with how Richard Reyna conducted the investigation are best
illustrated by an examination of how he handled Juan Moreno.

In conducting his

interviews with Moreno, Reyna did not follow appropriate techniques for interviewing an
eyewitness and the methods he employed were of the type designed to undermine
Moreno’s original identification and resulted in false memories. It is clear from Reyna’s
own notes, his technique was to undermine and then suggest.
MORENO CERTAIN IT WAS RUBEN CANTU―AUGUST 2004
Initially an attorney, Naomi Terr, attempted to contact Juan Moreno about the
Cantu case in October of 2002. 139

She tried to interview Moreno at his home. 140

Moreno’s wife informed her that Juan would not answer questions about the case.141

136

Section 29.1.2, Written Material for the State Mandated Basic Peace Officer’s Course (March 2004).
Id. at 30-31.
138
Id. at 31.
139
Letter to Ruth Friedman, August 23, 2004.
140
Id.
141
Id.
137

32 of 113

Despite this initial unsuccessful attempt, two years later in August of 2004, the
NAACP LDF employed Richard Reyna to contact Moreno. 142 He did this by trying to
follow him to work. 143 This initial attempt was unsuccessful. 144 Reyna returned to the
Moreno home the next day, but Moreno was already at work. 145 He returned again in the
afternoon while Moreno was still away and spoke with Moreno’s wife, Annabel. 146
Reyna describes her as “friendly but very cautious.” 147
He spoke with Mrs. Moreno about the death penalty and reports that she stated
people needed to be absolutely certain before they executed anyone. 148 One particular
notation that Reyna made about this conversation is interesting. Although he notes that
they discussed the death penalty, he only includes her statement concerning uncertainty
of the execution. The statement appears to be out-of-context and it is difficult to believe
that it was completely unsolicited by Reyna. Had her husband had any misgivings about
his identification of Ruben Cantu, this would have been the time for her to mention it and
surely Reyna would have noted it. Because he chose to only note this one sentence, it is
impossible to know for sure how this came about. However it came about, this statement
gives Reyna a foundation upon which to challenge Moreno’s certainty of his original
Cantu identification.
It is also through this meeting that we see how Reyna worked to gain the trust of
Mrs. Moreno.

He notes that she relaxed considerably after he mentioned that he had

142

Richard Reyna Report, August 23, 2004; Letter to Ruth Friedman, August 23, 2004.
Letter to Ruth Friedman, August 23, 2004.
144
Id.
145
Id.
146
Id.
147
Id.
148
Id.
143

33 of 113

done some work in Mexico. 149 It was after this, that she told him to come back the next
day to meet with Juan. 150
When Reyna came back the next day no one was home. 151 Reyna then drove to
several different locations looking for Moreno, eventually going back to the Moreno
home and waiting until Mrs. Moreno arrived with their son. 152 She apparently tried to
call Juan but did not get an answer. 153 She apologized to Reyna and they exchanged cell
phone numbers. 154 Reyna noted again that she was very friendly. She called him later
that evening and said Juan was home. 155
Reyna returned to the home and personally met with Juan Moreno. 156 This is the
first meeting between the two. Reyna details the meeting in his notes:
Mr. Moreno was cordial but cautious. I explained that I
had spoken with David Garza on several occasions and that
Mr. Garza is adamant that Ruben Cantu was not with him
on the night that he (Mr. Moreno) was shot. I told him that
I also spoke with several alibi witnesses in Waco, Texas
who are also adamant that Ruben Cantu was in Waco on
the night of the shooting. I then mentioned that witnesses
at the 615 Briggs address have mentioned that the person
seen running from the house where the shooting took place
was not Ruben Cantu or David Garza. 157
What is most revealing about this initial exchange is that Reyna is not questioning
Juan Moreno about what occurred on November 8, 1984, the day of the Briggs Street
shooting. Instead, he is providing information to the eyewitness and the information he is
providing is selective and operates to undermine Moreno’s confidence in his
149

Id.
Id.
151
Id.
152
Id.
153
Id.
154
Id.
155
Id.
156
Id.
157
Id.
150

34 of 113

identification of Ruben Cantu. Reyna essentially tells Moreno that everyone but Moreno
says that Cantu is innocent.
As if this tainting is not sufficiently disturbing standing alone, Reyna is
knowingly misleading Moreno. Reyna told representatives from this investigation that he
did not believe that the information he had obtained from witnesses asserting Cantu’s
innocence was credible. 158 None of this is part of a proper interview process. Of course,
Reyna does not believe that he did anything to influence any of the witnesses in this case,
including Moreno. 159
The reality, however, is that when confronted with this sort of information and
having one’s belief undermined, the natural reaction of almost anyone is to start
questioning one’s own recollection of a particular event. Not surprisingly during this
meeting, Moreno asks, “if it wasn’t Ruben Cantu, then who was it?” 160 And again, rather
than allow Moreno to discuss what he remembers about the incident, Reyna provides
information. He tells him that it was another person from the neighborhood. 161 Not only
does he suggest someone else as the shooter, he gives Moreno more reason to question
his identification of Cantu by telling him that the person “bore a strong resemblance to
Mr. Cantu but was a little taller.” 162
At this point in his investigation Reyna has not, even for himself, concluded that
anyone other than Ruben Cantu was the shooter. 163 After all, he did not even believe the
sources from which he obtained this information were credible. Nonetheless, he presents

158

Interview with Richard Reyna, August 14, 2006.
Id.
160
Letter to Ruth Friedman, August 23, 2004.
161
Id.
162
Id.
163
Interview with Richard Reyna, August 14, 2006.
159

35 of 113

this information to Moreno as fact in a way that can only work to undermine Moreno’s
confidence in the identification he had made twenty years earlier. And this is only the
first in a series of incidents in which Reyna states supposition as fact to Moreno. These
are the types of techniques that lead to false memories.
After this, Reyna proceeds to go over all of the times that Moreno was shown
photographic lineups. 164

He also mentions to Moreno, Detective Balleza’s pretrial

testimony, raising a possible inconsistency as to when Moreno knew Ruben Cantu’s
name. 165 Reyna describes Moreno looking puzzled on several occasions during this
conversation. 166

Despite these “puzzled” looks, Moreno never asks any questions.

Rather, it is Reyna who asks Moreno if Detective Balleza made up the incident. 167
Moreno responds that he could not recall saying that, but adds that it was a long time ago
and that he has tried to “forget those terrible memories.” 168 Importantly, he did not
contend that the detective’s recollection was a lie.
It is not until this point in the first meeting that Reyna’s notes indicate that he
asked Moreno a question. Specifically, he asks if Moreno had ever met Cantu before. 169
Moreno, consistent with what he said twenty years earlier to the police investigators and
at Cantu’s trial, answers that he had never met him but that he had seen him walking by

164

Letter to Ruth Friedman, August 23, 2004.
Id. Det. Balleza testified at a pretrial hearing and trial that Moreno provided him with Cantu’s name,
without identifying Cantu’s photograph. Cause No. 85-CR-1303, Ct. R. vol. I of X, at 29; Ct. R. vol. IX of
X, at 2592-94, 2596-98 & 2601. Det. Balleza did not prepare a written report in this case. Id. at 31. The
police reports that were prepared concerning this matter indicate that Moreno was provided the name after
the identification. Reyna is using this inconsistency to further undermine Moreno’s recollection of the
events and the credibility of the officers who actually conducted the photographic lineups.
166
Letter to Ruth Friedman, August 23, 2004.
167
Id.
168
Id.
169
Id.
165

36 of 113

the house a few times before. 170 This directly supports Moreno’s original identification
and is consistent with what he originally told the police investigating the shooting. It is
also consistent with Moreno’s brother, Eusebio’s in court testimony that he had seen
Cantu walking by the house. 171

Moreno clearly knew Cantu by face and was not

therefore identifying a stranger.
Mrs. Moreno joins the conversation and reiterates the point made earlier by Reyna
about how could Juan have known Cantu’s name if they had never met. 172 Reyna again
describes Moreno’s look as puzzled. 173 Moreno responds that it happened a long time
ago and he could not remember much. 174
Moreno then adds that he was scared at the time and did not want to identify
Cantu because he did not want any problems. 175 Again, this is completely consistent
with Moreno’s statements to the police and his sworn testimony in court. At this early
stage of Reyna’s investigation, Moreno is not saying he misidentified anyone and what he
does say supports his early statements and testimony.
Moreno’s statement to Reyna that he does not remember much is extremely
relevant information in assessing Reyna’s investigative techniques. This is now the
second time during their conversation that Moreno expresses a lack of memory
concerning specific details. Given the almost twenty-years that have passed since the
horrific shooting, this is certainly understandable. An investigator trying to uncover the
truth would take this statement at face value and begin asking the subject about what he

170

Id.
Ct. R. vol. VIII of X, at 2188-89.
172
Letter to Ruth Friedman, August 23, 2004.
173
Id.
174
Id.
175
Id.
171

37 of 113

does recall. This is not, however, how Richard Reyna conducted his investigation.
Instead he tells Moreno that, “identifying Ruben Cantu by name was just as bad as
pointing him out in a photo lineup.” 176
Interestingly, Mrs. Moreno joins with Reyna and likewise contends there was
very little difference. 177 Moreno gives no indication that he was mistaken and instead
does not reply. 178
Reyna goes on to ask Moreno when he had last seen Cantu before the shooting. 179
Moreno answers that it was about three days prior to the shooting. 180 Reyna “gently
reminded” him that he’d testified it had been about three weeks prior.181 Moreno again
does not respond. 182
What Reyna does next is completely improper. At this point in his meeting with
Moreno, he has spent the bulk of his time telling Moreno that there is evidence that Cantu
was innocent. When Moreno mentions memory problems, not only does Reyna not try to
discover what Moreno does know, he seizes the opportunity to further undermine
Moreno’s confidence in the identification by suggesting police misconduct. According to
Reyna’s own records:
I told Mr. Moreno that police investigators were very
anxious to charge Ruben Cantu after his shootout with the
off duty police officer and that it seemed like they might
have put words in his mouth or that they (police
investigators) gave false trial testimony. 183

176

Id.
Id.
178
Id.
179
Id.
180
Id.
181
Id.
182
Id.
183
Id.
177

38 of 113

In response, Moreno tells Reyna that, “he couldn’t remember much after so many
years”. 184 Reyna has absolutely no evidence to support this implicit assertion of police
misconduct but presents his suppositions as fact.
When Moreno is finally asked a relevant question about the shooting, Moreno
confidently asserts that he was sure that Ruben Cantu was involved. Again, Reyna
documents the exchange:

“I asked Mr. Moreno if he was certain about his

identification of Ruben Cantu as the man who shot him. He said that he was sure that
Ruben Cantu was inside his house.” 185 This critical statement is completely consistent
with Moreno’s previous identifications of Cantu.
It is not until this point that Reyna begins asking about the shooting. Reyna asked
Moreno how far Cantu was from him at the time of the shooting. 186 Moreno answered
that Cantu stood four to five feet away. 187 Rather than simply note Moreno’s answer,
Reyna comments that, “it is very difficult to understand why someone, who practically
lives directly across the street, and is seen almost on a daily basis, would ever consider
robbing someone who can easily identify him.” 188 Not only is this assertion factually
incorrect, Moreno never said that he saw Cantu on a daily basis, the answer is
straightforward: Cantu was not concerned because he never expected anyone to survive
to make the identification or that everyone was so intimidated by him that they would not
talk to the police. A stranger who Moreno and Gomez had never seen would have less of
a motive to shoot both men numerous times than someone they recognized, such as
Cantu.
184

Id.
Id. (emphasis added).
186
Id.
187
Id.
188
Id.
185

39 of 113

To his credit, Moreno does not seem to be buying into Reyna’s suggestions and
answers that it is difficult to explain the way people think these days. 189 Mrs. Moreno,
however, is a different story. She comments that, “it makes no sense” and sides with
what Reyna is saying. 190
At this point, Reyna produces a photograph of Ramiro Reyes. 191 This picture
very clearly shows a young man with curly hair (pelo chino). 192 Moreno views the
picture and states that he does not remember anyone with that type of hair. 193 Reyna
covers the hair, but Moreno still says that, “he had never seen this person before.” 194
Thus, in his very first meeting with Reyna, Moreno not only contends that he does not
recognize Ramiro Reyes, the person in the picture, he has no recollection of anyone with
that type of hair.
There is no moment of epiphany with Moreno viewing Reyes’ picture where he
declares that his original identification of Cantu was wrong.

There is not even a

suggestion that he has any idea of the identity of the person depicted in the photograph.
Here, Reyna is showing Moreno the picture of the person David Garza claims was
responsible for the capital murder and shooting, and Moreno does not react in the
slightest.

189

Id.
Id.
191
Id.
192
Id. Reyna’s attempt to get Moreno to identify Reyes employs a technique that is far more suggestive
than anything done by the police when Moreno originally identified Cantu. While the NAACP LDF
apparently distrusts Moreno’s original identification of Cantu, the organization has chosen to rely on this
suggestive procedure as support for its claims of Cantu’s innocence.
193
Id.
194
Id.
190

40 of 113

Ever persistent, Reyna tells Moreno that the codefendant, David Garza, has
suggested someone other than Ruben Cantu did the crime. 195 Moreno’s only response
was to shrug his shoulders. 196

Reyna goes further and comments that, “police

investigators might have suggested Mr. Cantu’s name and photograph in retaliation for
the shooting of the off duty police officer and if this was the case, he [Moreno] is just as
much a victim as Ruben Cantu.” 197 Reyna then continues, “I told Mr. Moreno that it
looked like he might have been used and again told him that it was very likely that he
was also a victim, just as much as Ruben Cantu.” 198 Moreno does not respond to this
statement. 199 Now, Reyna is planting a reasonable sounding excuse in Moreno’s psyche.
Reyna ends his first meeting with Moreno by telling him that he could help others
by making sure that prosecutors are certain before they execute someone in the future. 200
Given the uncontroversial nature of this statement, both of the Morenos agree. 201
At no point did Juan Moreno express any doubt or reservations about his
identification of Ruben Cantu. Based on how Reyna conducted the interview, this was
obviously not what he wanted to hear. He schedules a second meeting over dinner.
According to Reyna, “We agreed to all have dinner at a nice seafood restaurant upon my
return. They all seemed happy about the idea of going to a nice seafood restaurant.” 202
It seems apparent that Reyna is manipulating this situation and easing into the
grooming process with promises of rewards⎯such as nice meals. At this point, Moreno
has been consistent with his prior identifications of Cantu and has given no indication
195

Id.
Id.
197
Id.
198
Id. (emphasis added).
199
Id.
200
Id.
201
Id.
202
Id.
196

41 of 113

that he was unsure of the identification. He does not recognize Ramiro Reyes or anyone
with curly hair (pelo chino). He has said nothing that would give Reyna any reason to
believe that the police pressured him into falsely identifying Cantu. Yet, Reyna wants to
continue meeting with Moreno to discuss the case.
MORENO STILL SURE ABOUT CANTU IDENTIFICATION―SEPTEMBER 2004
In what appears to be his second meeting with Juan Moreno, Reyna made contact
with him at his home on September 11, 2004. 203 Reyna documented this meeting in a
September 12, 2004, letter to Ruth Friedman. After making small talk, Reyna “shifted
the conversation to the shooting on Briggs Street.” 204 He began by telling Moreno that
he recently met with Cantu’s codefendant, David Garza, and that “Garza remains
adamant that Ruben Cantu was not with him the night that he and Pedro Gomez were
shot.” 205 Reyna also tells Moreno that he spoke with other people living on Briggs Street
at the time and they too “had a different view of what happened on the night of the
shooting.” 206
Reyna gave Moreno further details and told him that there was a witness who saw
the person who ran from the house and that person was not Cantu. 207

Reyna also

repeated that Cantu had an alibi since Maria Garcia 208 remained “adamant that Ruben
Cantu was at her home with her brothers in Waco, Texas the night of the shooting.” 209
After providing this information, Reyna shifts the discussion to what he perceives
as an inconsistency from his earlier conversation with Moreno. Reyna told Moreno that
203

Letter to Ruth Friedman, September 12, 2004.
Id.
205
Id.
206
Id.
207
Id.
208
Maria Garcia testified for the defense at Ruben Cantu’s trial regarding the alleged alibi.
209
Letter to Ruth Friedman, September 12, 2004.
204

42 of 113

he did not understand how Moreno was able to identify Cantu by name, but could not
identify his picture. 210

It is apparent what Reyna is doing here is taking pieces of

information out of context, and putting his own spin on the facts. All of the early records
indicate that Moreno recognized Cantu from the picture, but was afraid to make the
identification⎯a fact that was confirmed by Moreno during his first interview with
Reyna. 211 But that is not how Reyna chooses to characterize it.
At the time of Reyna’s second interview, nearly twenty years after the fact,
Moreno recalled learning Cantu’s name when the trial started. 212 Reyna seized upon this,
telling Moreno that there was no question in his mind that Moreno never identified Ruben
Cantu by name. 213 Moreno responded by pointing out that the witnesses, including
Garza, could be making up the story to make Cantu look innocent. 214 Reyna’s response
to this contention is telling. He specifically informs Moreno:
I told him that I also thought about that, but that it did not
make any sense. I asked for his thoughts. I commented
that Ruben is already dead and these people have nothing to
gain from this. I commented that everyone would have to
be involved in this conspiracy but that this was very
unlikely because neither party knows each other. I told Mr.
Moreno that I gave each person the opportunity to tell me if
they believed that Ruben was involved in the shooting. I
said that I also assured them that this would end the
investigation but that all witnesses remain adamant that
Ruben Cantu was innocent. 215

210

Id.
Letter to Ruth Friedman, August 23, 2004.
212
Letter to Ruth Friedman, September 12, 2004.
213
Id.
214
Id.
215
Id.
211

43 of 113

So despite the fact that some of the witnesses did have something to gain, that they did
know each other, and that Reyna had his own doubts as to the credibility of some, he
presents all of this as absolute fact to Moreno.
As if this was not disturbing enough, Reyna then proposes his theory of what
happened to Moreno. According to Reyna, he tells Moreno that it seemed to him that the
“police investigators were pressuring him to identify Ruben Cantu because they were
after him for other reasons.” 216 Reyna then added, “I told him that it seemed obvious that
they were trying to get him to say something that he did not want to say.” 217 Thus,
without Moreno having even remotely suggested that he had been pressured or given any
indication that he was unsure about the identification of Cantu, Reyna has formed his
own theory of how the identification was made and presents that theory to Moreno. And
yet, despite all the pressure Reyna was now putting on Moreno, Moreno still asserts that
he is certain “Ruben Cantu was the person who shot him.” 218
Reyna does not give up. He goes on to restate that the witnesses do not know
each other and are adamant that Cantu was not involved. 219 He tells Moreno that the
officers clearly lied about what happened with the photo lineup. 220 Reyna adds that “it is
very possible that an innocent man was executed” and then tells Moreno “that he should
not feel bad about anything because it certainly looks like police investigators intimidated
and then used him to convict Mr. Cantu.” 221 Moreno does not respond to this. 222

216

Id.
Id.
218
Id. (emphasis added).
219
Id.
220
Id.
221
Id.
222
Id.
217

44 of 113

Reyna ends the September 12th letter with something that seems completely out of
place in the context of what he had already detailed. Reyna notes that while he was there,
Moreno received a certified letter from the Texas Department of Public Safety. 223
Moreno asked Reyna to help him read the letter. According to Reyna, Moreno was
unable to get his driver’s license renewed because of restitution he owed resulting from
an automobile accident. 224 After helping with this letter, Reyna was asked to read a
second letter to Moreno from the City of San Antonio. 225 One of Moreno’s vehicles had
been towed earlier in the month and was accruing a $15.00 a day storage fee on top of the
$69.50 towing fee. 226 Moreno had until October 3, 2004, to pay the fees or the vehicle
would be auctioned. 227 There was no need to mention the contents of these letters except
to make clear to Friedman that Moreno was in need of financial assistance.
UNDOCUMENTED MEETING ―NOVEMBER 30, 2004
In his next letter to Friedman, Reyna details a meeting between he and Moreno on
November 30, 2004. According to the letter, Reyna arrived at the Moreno home at 5:50
a.m. and parked “a safe distance” so that he could follow Moreno to work. 228 It is
curious that Reyna, who had earlier noted that Moreno was cordial, would feel the need
to surprise Moreno. He followed Moreno to an apartment complex where Moreno picked
up some workers. 229 Not surprisingly, given Reyna’s conduct, Reyna describes Moreno
as “shocked” to see him. 230

223

Id.
Id.
225
Id.
226
Id.
227
Id.
228
Letter to Ruth Friedman, December 3, 2004.
229
Id.
230
Id.
224

45 of 113

Reyna said that he needed to talk to Moreno without Moreno’s wife present
because Reyna did not want to worry Mrs. Moreno. 231 This is an odd sentiment to
express since at his earlier meeting, Mrs. Moreno had been receptive. Nonetheless,
Moreno agreed to meet later at a restaurant near a subdivision where Moreno was
working. 232
Reyna begins the November 30th meeting as he had done previously by providing
information to Moreno. As he detailed in a letter to Ms. Friedman:
I told Mr. Moreno that we felt certain that Ruben Cantu
was not the man who shot him and Pedro Gomez. I told
him about my visit with David Garza and about the
contents in David Garza’s sworn affidavit. Mr. Moreno
remained quiet. I then mentioned the description of the
man seen running from the house on the night of the
shooting. I told him that several witnesses were adamant
that the eyewitness, who saw the person running from the
house immediately after the shooting, told them that the
person that he saw running was not Ruben Cantu. I also
told Mr. Moreno that the eyewitness has since passed
away. 233
Once again, Reyna is doing his best to undermine Moreno’s confidence in his own
memory.

Not only does Reyna again provide information to Moreno before ever

knowing what Moreno believes, he now tells Moreno that his investigation makes him
certain that Ruben Cantu was not involved.
Although Reyna did not explain this to Moreno, the eyewitness he is referring to
was Bill McCartney.

Bill McCartney was a neighbor of the Cantus and allegedly

purchased stolen property from and sold drugs to Ruben Cantu. 234 And the “several

231

Id.
Id.
233
Id.
234
Sworn Statement of Kenneth Bohnenblust, July 20, 2006; Richard Reyna Interview Notes, August 30,
2004. It is also worth noting that a little more than two weeks after the Briggs Street shooting, a .22 caliber
232

46 of 113

witnesses” he is referring to are John Krieg and Kenneth Bohnenblust. Krieg was a
friend of McCartney and was living with him at the time of the shooting. 235 Bohnenblust
also lived in the neighborhood and had known the Cantu family his entire life. 236 Both
of these men have criminal histories. 237
According to Reyna’s records, Bohnenblust said that McCartney told him that he
saw the person running and that it was not Cantu. 238

When contacted by this

investigation, Bohnenblust said that McCartney told him this two or three months after
the night of the shooting. 239
Similarly, Reyna’s notes indicate that Krieg told him that he was certain that
McCartney claimed to have seen someone running from the house the night of the
shooting and that it was not Cantu. 240

Krieg, however, told this investigation that

McCartney told him that he saw David Garza and another individual running “across the
street to the trailer park where Ruben’s father lived.”

241

According to Krieg, McCartney

never said the other person was not Cantu; rather, he speculated that McCartney would
have told him if it had been Ruben Cantu. 242
McCartney is now deceased. On the night of the shooting, McCartney told
Officer Stanley Bronder that he heard a gunshot and saw a person running south across

rifle was discovered in McCartney’s home during a police raid. San Antonio Police Report, Case No.
84467237/01.
235
Sworn Statement of John Krieg, June 23, 2006. Reyna’s records indicate that the NAACP LDF paid
Krieg $740 for his assistance in this case. Richard Reyna Expense Reports.
236
Sworn Statement of Kenneth Bohnenblust, July 20, 2006.
237
Bohnenblust is currently serving an eight-year prison sentence for a drug offense and had previously
been convicted of attempted burglary of a habitation. Sworn Statement of Kenneth Bohnenblust, July 20,
2006; Criminal History of Kenneth Bohnenblust. Kreig has four theft convictions, including a felony theft
conviction for which he is currently on probation. Criminal History of John Krieg.
238
Richard Reyna Interview Notes, September 16, 2004.
239
Sworn Statement of Kenneth Bohnenblust, July 20, 2006
240
Letter to Ruth Friedman, August 30, 2004.
241
Sworn Statement of John Krieg, June 23, 2006.
242
Id.

47 of 113

the street. 243 At the time, he told the officer he could not tell if the person he saw running
was a man or a woman. 244
Even if Reyna truly believed the assertions to be true when he presented them to
Moreno, he was still misrepresenting them to Moreno. Reyna failed to disclose the
criminal histories of the sources, the relationships of the sources to Ruben Cantu and his
family, or the inconsistent statement made by McCartney to the police. All of this seems
designed to further undermine Moreno’s confidence in his identification of Cantu.
Reyna continues:
I reminded Mr. Moreno that during our last
conversation, 245 he mentioned that the person who shot him
had “chino” hair. Mr. Moreno said that he was certain of
this. I produced the photographs of Ramiro Reyes and
Ruben Cantu. Mr. Moreno quickly commented that
Ramiro’s hair was definitely “chino” but that he couldn’t
tell about Ruben’s hair because of the baseball hat. 246
Reyna then quickly added that he talked to the Cantu family and they all said Ruben had
short straight hair that he always combed straight back. 247 Based on this, “Mr. Moreno
commented that it clearly leaves the other guy as the only one with ‘chino’ hair.” 248
Reyna continued asking Moreno if there was anything else he could recall about the
shooter. “Mr. Moreno said that the only thing that he could remember was that the
shooter definitely had ‘chino’ hair.” 249

243

Supplementary Report of Stanley Bronder, November 9, 1984.
Id.
245
Not only does this represent a complete change from what Moreno said during his first and second
meetings with Reyna, this is an apparent reference to an earlier meeting for which Reyna conveniently has
no documentation.
246
Letter to Ruth Friedman, December 3, 2004.
247
Id. See also infra footnote 85.
248
Letter to Ruth Friedman, December 3, 2004.
249
Id.
244

48 of 113

There are other troubling matters detailed in Reyna’s December 3, 2004 letter to
Friedman. Reyna went over the identification procedures used by the police back in 1984
and 1985. 250 He also detailed the sequence of events that led to Moreno’s identification
of Ruben Cantu. 251 According to Reyna, Moreno did not remember going to the police
station. 252

In response, Reyna “quickly” produced Moreno’s March 5, 1985, sworn

affidavit and read it to him. 253 While Moreno acknowledged his signature, Moreno
claimed that this was the first time anyone had read the affidavit to him. 254
Reyna further asserts that Moreno told him that he often signed things that had not
been read to him. 255 Moreno said that the police told him that they already knew the
name of the person who shot him and Gomez, and that they just needed him to point the
person out. 256 As we know from Moreno’s testimony during David Garza’s examining
trial, all of this is completely untrue. Not only were Moreno’s sworn written statements
in which he identified both Cantu and Garza read and translated to him in Spanish, he
testified they were truthful. 257 Either Moreno does not recall this, Reyna’s notes are
inaccurate, or Moreno is lying to Reyna. Whatever the reason, it is a fact that most
certainly undermines Moreno’s current version of the events.

250

Id.
Id.
252
Id.
253
Id. This is an odd affidavit to read to Moreno at this point. The March 5, 1985, affidavit only concerns
the identification of David Garza, not Ruben Cantu. Since they were discussing Moreno’s identification of
Cantu, it would have made more sense to produce Moreno’s March 3, 1985, sworn affidavit as it directly
related to that event.
254
Id.
255
Id.
256
Id.
257
Cause No. 85-JUV-0282, Ct. R. vol. I of I, at 44-45 & 47.
251

49 of 113

Reyna goes on to inform Moreno about Detective Quintanilla having taken him to
the police station. Moreno interjects, according to Reyna, to make something clear. 258
According to Reyna, Moreno “does not recall ever going to the police station with
anyone [and] he never identified Ruben Cantu in his sworn affidavit.” 259

Again,

however, we know this is simply not true. It is clear from the sworn written statements of
both Moreno and his brother, Eusebio, and the police officers’ reports that Moreno not
only was accompanied to the police station by his brother, he did identify Ruben Cantu.
This fact is also established by Moreno’s sworn testimony in Cantu’s trial and at Garza’s
examining trial.
Perhaps the confusion on this point comes from the fact that Reyna initially only
provided one of Moreno’s sworn affidavits for him to read, the one in which he identifies
David Garza. As Reyna notes, “Mr. Moreno was quick to point out that in the affidavit
that I just read to him, he identified David Garza, not Ruben Cantu.” 260 By producing the
affidavits out of sequence, Reyna is selectively providing information to Moreno and, not
surprisingly, Moreno’s memory is further tainted. 261
Even more troubling, however, is how Reyna responds to Moreno’s questions
about Cantu being involved. Although Moreno appears to be accepting that the shooter
had curly hair (pelo chino), he still does not appear to be convinced that Cantu was not
the shooter. According to Reyna, “Mr. Moreno asked several times if we were certain
that Ruben Cantu did not have ‘chino’ hair.” 262 Rather than allow Moreno to reach his
own conclusions, or provide him with additional pictures of Cantu, Reyna tells him that
258

Id.
Id.
260
Id.
261
Id.
262
Id.
259

50 of 113

they “were positive that Ruben never had ‘chino’ hair.” 263 Given that at this point the
only picture of Cantu that Reyna has shown Moreno has Cantu wearing a baseball cap,
Moreno is left with no choice but to accept Reyna’s statement as being the truth.
Importantly, Reyna then thinks to ask if Moreno ever told anyone that the shooter
had “chino” hair. 264 Moreno answered that he had not. 265 This is completely consistent
with the early police reports and the sworn statements of the officers assigned to
investigate this case that Moreno never told any of them that the shooter had curly hair
(pelo chino). It also directly contradicts what Juan Moreno told this investigation as he
now asserts that he has said from the very beginning that the person involved had curly
hair (pelo chino). 266
Reyna also noted that Moreno specifically asked about the affidavit that Garza
provided for the NAACP LDF investigation. Reyna then proceeded to go over Garza’s
affidavit with Moreno. 267 Reyna then told Moreno that, “he [Moreno], Pedro Gomez and
Ruben Cantu had been victims.” 268
Reyna then noted that Moreno said he could not remember testifying at the
trial. 269 Reyna said he then produced a copy of Moreno’s trial testimony and “politely”
let him know he did testify. 270
Despite all of this uncertainty and even at this late date, Moreno maintains that
police investigators or prosecutors did not pressure him. 271 Reyna writes, “I asked if

263

Id.
Id.
265
Id.
266
Juan Moreno Interview, February 8, 2007.
267
Letter to Ruth Friedman, December 3, 2004.
268
Id.
269
Id.
270
Id.
271
Id.
264

51 of 113

police investigators or prosecutors ever pressure (sic) him into saying anything that he
did not want to say. He said that he was not.” 272 Again, this is completely consistent
with the statements of the officers and the lead prosecutor involved, and is a direct
contradiction to what Moreno intimated in his press conference and what he has recently
told this investigation.
Within a couple of months of Reyna’s first meetings with Moreno, where Moreno
stated unequivocally that Ruben Cantu was the shooter and that he had never seen
Ramiro Reyes before and did not recall anyone with curly hair (pelo chino), Moreno is
now saying that the only thing he recalls is that the shooter had curly hair (pelo chino).
There is no direct indication in Reyna’s records of why Moreno has now changed his
story from not recognizing Ramiro Reyes or anyone with that type of hair to being certain
the shooter had curly hair (pelo chino).
What is most troubling about this is that there may have been meetings that
occurred sometime between mid-September and the end of November that are
undocumented. In detailing the November 30th meeting, Reyna notes that it takes place
at the restaurant where they had apparently met for an earlier meeting. Reyna notes in his
report that it “was the same location where Ms. Friedman and I last spoke with Mr.
Moreno.” 273 Reyna has provided no records for this earlier meeting.
This meeting must have occurred after the August meeting, as Reyna clearly
states that it was his first meeting with Moreno. It is also unlikely that the meeting
occurred prior to his September meeting with Moreno. His letter to Friedman detailing
the September meeting makes no reference to any earlier meeting and it is clear that

272
273

Id.
Id.

52 of 113

Moreno is still telling Reyna that he is certain that Cantu was the shooter. Thus, the
undocumented meeting must have occurred some time after September 11th but before
November 30th.
In addition to the reference in Reyna’s December 3rd letter to Friedman, there is
other evidence that a meeting, or a series of meetings, took place in mid-November. On a
handwritten receipt for $400.00, Moreno’s wife references money paid to her and Juan
for time spent in discussing what happened in 1984. 274 The receipt seems to be for
November of 2004. 275 The receipt does not indicate whether these discussions occurred
with Reyna.
Although there are no reports documenting what happened at the meetings, Reyna
told this investigation that these were meetings with Friedman and Moreno and he was
just there to translate if needed. 276 It is odd that there is no further documentation of
these meetings. This raises the obvious question of what happened at these meetings.
Reyna may have unintentionally given a clue to the purpose of the meetings in his
September 12, 2004, letter to Ruth Friedman when he detailed Moreno’s financial
difficulties.
While we do not know what happened during the undocumented November
meeting or meetings, we do know that Moreno owed money because of an automobile
accident and the loss of his driver’s license, and that he owed towing and storage fees to
the city. Reyna documented this and made it known to Friedman. Reyna’s records also
indicate that on November 30, 2004, Moreno was paid $200.00 as “lost wages.”277 There

274

Handwritten Receipt signed by the Morenos.
Id.
276
Richard Reyna Interview, August 14, 2006.
277
Richard Reyna Expense Reports.
275

53 of 113

is nothing in the reports, however, indicating that the self-employed Moreno had missed
any work as a result of his meetings with Reyna. In fact, the November 30th meeting
occurred at 5:10 p.m. after he had completed his work at the job site. 278
Ultimately, Reyna did not document when Moreno first asserted that the shooter
had curly hair (pelo chino). All we know from Reyna’s December 3rd letter is that he
now has an allegedly new revelation that supports the claim that Ruben Cantu is
innocent. This detail does not appear to have developed until after one or more of the
undocumented November meetings and until after the Morenos have received financial
compensation. Given the critical and pivotal nature of this information, it is suspicious
that Reyna failed to thoroughly document it.
MORENO BEGINS SAYING WRONG MAN MAY HAVE BEEN EXECUTED―DECEMBER 1, 2004
The next meeting with Moreno occurs on December 1, 2004. Reyna met with
him at a job site. 279 At the outset, Moreno was curious if there would be a new trial. 280
Reyna assured him there would not be a new trial because Cantu had already been
executed. 281 Because of this, Reyna told Moreno he did not “have to worry.” 282 Implicit
in this statement is an assurance that there would be no consequences if his story were to
now change. This seems to be the last piece of information Moreno needed before he
would abandon the version he had consistently told for twenty years.
When asked if he had thought about what he had discussed with Reyna the day
before, Moreno said that he did and told Reyna “that he told police investigators several
times that the person who shot them had chino hair and that the other person looked very
278

Letter to Ruth Friedman, December 3, 2004.
Id.
280
Id.
281
Id.
282
Id.
279

54 of 113

young.” 283 Again, this directly contradicts what Moreno said the day before when asked
if he had ever told investigators that the shooter had curly hair (pelo chino) and he said
that he had not. 284
At this meeting, Moreno asked to see a photo of David Garza. 285 After looking at
it, Moreno reiterated that Garza was the younger person inside the house the night they
were shot. 286
According to Reyna, Moreno remained adamant that he never gave police Cantu’s
name, that the police never read to him his own affidavits, and that he never “shook with
fright” when he viewed the photo lineups. 287 Reyna again showed Moreno a photo of
Ramiro Reyes and Moreno said, “It looks like an innocent man might have been
executed”. 288
Although it is not documented in this letter, there is a handwritten receipt signed
by Moreno showing that Reyna made a $200 payment to Moreno on December 1, 2004,
ostensibly for lost wages. 289 Again, it is not clear to what extent Moreno has actually
missed any work as result of his meetings with Reyna. Reyna’s letters do not seem to
indicate that Moreno has missed any significant amount of work as a result of the
meetings.

This December 1st meeting occurs at Moreno’s job site and, at least as

represented in the letter to Friedman, is rather short and ends with Reyna noting that

283

Id.
Id.
285
Id.
286
Id.
287
Id.
288
Id.
289
Richard Reyna Expense Reports.
284

55 of 113

Moreno “looked concerned about returning to work” and the two agreeing to meet again
within two weeks. 290
Less than four months after his first meeting with Reyna, Moreno has gone from
being certain that Cantu was the shooter and that he had never seen anyone with curly
hair (pelo chino), to believing the complete opposite. This change may have resulted
from Reyna’s suggestive methods during their meetings, Moreno’s fading memory over
the decades, Moreno’s willingness to help in return for financial compensation, or some
combination of these factors. Given the process in which it came about, it is not reliable
or credible.
MORENO AGREES TO BE VIDEOTAPED―JANUARY 2005
In his letter to Ruth Friedman, Reyna explains his difficulty in meeting with
Moreno. 291 Reyna does not provide any specific dates for his attempted contact, but
notes that Moreno has been working from early in the morning until late. 292 He details a
planned meeting with the Morenos for dinner on one Sunday night.293 Although they had
initially made plans, Reyna was unable to get a hold of Moreno to schedule a time. 294
Thus, there was no meeting at this time.
Reyna’s expense records, however, indicate that on December 18, 2004, he met
with Moreno at a hotel and had a meal. 295 Reyna spent $156.82 on the meal suggesting
that there were more people than just Moreno and Reyna present. 296
documentation indicating what occurred at this meeting.
290

Letter to Ruth Friedman, December 3, 2004.
Letter to Ruth Friedman, January 10, 2005.
292
Id.
293
Id.
294
Id.
295
Richard Reyna Expense Reports.
296
Id.
291

56 of 113

There is no

In a later letter, Reyna notes that he met with the Morenos and they told him that
their son was interested in doing the type of work Reyna did. 297 Because he does not
date this meeting, it is not possible to say if this occurred on December 18th or at some
other time. Reyna kindly follows up by sending their son, Ricardo, a video containing
cases Reyna has worked on. 298 What it does evidence is that Reyna was having more
involved contact with Moreno and his family and he was not otherwise documenting
these contacts.
On January 22, 2005, Reyna met with the Morenos and their son, Ricardo, at Chin
San restaurant. 299 During this meal, Moreno’s son asked if there could have been three
men inside the house and Moreno “immediately” said there were only 2 men, Garza and
the one with chino hair. 300 Reyna reinforced the difference in hair by mentioning the
difference in hairstyles between Ruben Cantu and Ramiro Reyes. 301 Moreno responds to
this by saying that Cantu clearly had straight hair and wore it combed back. 302 This is
exactly what Reyna told Moreno at their November 30th meeting. Moreno then adds that
he heard that Ruben Cantu was not even in San Antonio on the night he was shot. 303
This, as is much of what Moreno now says about the case, comes directly from what
Reyna told Moreno during their earlier meetings. 304
Reyna further reinforces this by telling Moreno that he interviewed Maria and
Ricardo Garcia, Eloy Gonzales, and Eloy’s brother, Joe “Blackie” Alejandro, and that
everyone was adamant that Ruben was at the Garcia home in Waco, Texas on the night
297

Letter to Ruth Friedman, January 23, 2005.
Id.
299
Id. Reyna’s records indicate that he spent $48.78 on this meal. Richard Reyna Expense Reports.
300
Letter to Ruth Friedman, January 23, 2005.
301
Id.
302
Id.
303
Id.
304
Id.
298

57 of 113

that he and Pedro Gomez were shot. 305 While he may have said this to Moreno, it is clear
that all of them were not “adamant” about the alibi. Reyna’s own notes indicate that he
never even spoke with Ricardo Garcia because he suffered impairment as the result of a
stroke. And while he did speak with Joe, he did not provide sufficient information to
corroborate the alibi. As for Eloy, Reyna himself did not find him credible. Nonetheless,
Reyna is willing to mislead Moreno to further his agenda.
It is at this point that Reyna does something particularly troubling: He tells
Moreno that, “we could all safely agree that Ramiro Reyes was the person who shot him
and Pedro Gomez.” 306 To which both Mr. and Mrs. Moreno nod in agreement. Reyna
continues:
I said that I was more interested in how police investigators
convinced him to point out Ruben Cantu. I carefully
mentioned the various photo lineups that he viewed and
about him being unable to identify Ruben Cantu. I
mentioned that police investigators indicated in their
reports that he began to tremble when he looked at the
photograph of Ruben…
I commented that after police investigators showed him the
photo lineup in December (*December 16, 1984) and he
was unable to identify Ruben, nothing more was done on
the case until Ruben got involved in a shootout at a bar
with an off-duty police officer. I said that the day after the
shootout, police investigators visited him again with
another photo lineup. I said that at this point, police
investigators said in their report that he (Moreno) would
not identify Ruben Cantu’s photograph but that Mr.
Moreno did tell them that the person who shot them was
named Ruben Cantu. 307
Reyna also misleads Moreno about what the reports actually say. Again, none of
the police reports indicate that Moreno provided Cantu’s name to the investigators.
305

Id.
Id.
307
Id.
306

58 of 113

Rather, this assertion is based on Detective Balleza’s testimony in Cantu’s trial.308 The
suggestion that multiple investigators noted this is false and creates the impression for
Moreno that the officers lied in their reports, further confusing Moreno. All of the
reports are clear, Cantu’s name was not provided until after Moreno had identified him
from the photo lineup. Not surprisingly, Moreno is now in complete agreement saying,
along with his wife, “that it looked like the police were saying untrue things just so they
could make their case look stronger.” 309
Reyna then tells the Morenos what David Garza has told him about the night of
the murder and about what McCartney purportedly told Krieg and Bohnenblust,
reinforcing Moreno’s new belief that Cantu was not involved. 310

Reyna notes that

Moreno “looked pensive.” 311 Reyna reassures Moreno that none of this is his fault.312
According to Reyna:
I told him that it was not his fault that Ruben Cantu was
executed. I told him that after being shot and left for dead,
police investigators also victimized him by either
persuading or intimidating him into saying things that he
knew, were not true. 313
Reyna further explained how he tried to make Moreno feel better by telling him
that others could have come forward with their information but did not. 314 Reyna added
that, “the only people with courage were Maria Garcia, Eloy Gonzales, Joe and Ralph

308

Ct. R. vol. I of X, at 29 & 32; Ct. R. vol. IX of X, at 2592 & 2601.
Letter to Ruth Friedman, January 23, 2005.
310
Id. This is another partial truth. In his sworn statement to this investigation, Krieg asserted that
McCartney never said that Cantu was not seen running from the house, rather only that Krieg believes
McCartney would have told him if it had been Cantu.
311
Id.
312
Id.
313
Id.
314
Id.
309

59 of 113

Alejandro.” 315 Reyna then lengthens his list of parties to blame by adding that, “neither,
the prosecutors or defense attorneys spoke with the brothers as they waited outside the
courtroom so they just left.” 316 Adding, “Maria Garcia testified but the prosecutors just
tried to make fun of her.” 317 Reyna continues with his conspiracy theory:
I said that police investigators had their own agenda to get
Ruben Cantu, not because of the shooting at the house, but
because Ruben shot one of their own. I again mentioned
how the police reports were fabricated. I repeated how
they mentioned that he began to tremble when he saw the
photograph of Ruben Cantu and later, during another photo
lineup, how he wouldn’t identify the photograph of Ruben
Cantu, but gave the name of Ruben Cantu as the person that
shot him and Pedro Gomez. Mr. Moreno just shook his
head and said that these things were not true. 318
Just as with his earlier assurance of no legal ramifications, Reyna is now providing moral
assurances and identifying individuals other than Moreno for the public to blame.
Moreno then wonders how this would help Cantu now since he is dead. 319 Mrs.
Moreno responds by immediately commenting that this could help others who might be
innocent on death row. 320 Reyna asked Moreno if anyone helped or persuaded him in his
identification of Cantu, but Moreno did not answer. 321

Reyna asks if Moreno is

interested in reading his trial testimony and statements; Moreno “eagerly” responds that
he would and Mrs. Moreno volunteers to translate them for him. 322
Reyna ends the evening by mentioning the video-interview scheduled for Sunday,
February 13th. Moreno indicates that he has no problem with the date. Reyna reminds

315

Id.
Id.
317
Id.
318
Id. (emphasis added).
319
Id.
320
Id.
321
Id.
322
Id.
316

60 of 113

Moreno that if he had to “cancel a work project, he would be reimbursed for lost
wages.” 323
Reyna uses the word “agenda” when discussing the actions of the police officers
in this case. Yet, he did not directly speak with any of the officers involved in this
investigation. Instead, he speaks with friends of the Cantus and their family members in
an attempt to develop a potential alibi for Cantu. He does not find these people to be
particularly credible and is unable to corroborate their stories with outside sources.
Nonetheless he presents all of this to Moreno as fact saying that the witnesses are
“adamant” and he even misrepresents their relationships when he contended that they did
not know each other. The fact is that all of these witnesses are either related to each other
or are otherwise friends.
Yet this is how Reyna conducts the investigation. This happens from his very
first meeting with Moreno, and continues even after Moreno has told him that he is
certain about his identification of Cantu. When, after multiple meetings, meals, and
money, Moreno begins to agree with Reyna’s version of what occurred, Reyna
effectively ends his investigation and begins prepping Moreno for the videotaped
interview for the NAACP LDF’s website. Although the formal investigation may have
ended, Reyna’s contact with Moreno has not. Since August of 2004, there have been
almost 150 telephone calls made between Reyna and the Morenos. 324 The calls range in
length from one minute to as long as fifteen minutes, and have continued well after
Moreno gave his videotaped interview. 325

323

Id.
Moreno Telephone Records.
325
Id.
324

61 of 113

THE PAYMENTS
The extent of Reyna’s methods with Moreno do not rest exclusively with
suggestive interview techniques, they also include gifts and cash. The first payment is
shown in a handwritten receipt for $400.00. This seems to be a payment for the time the
Morenos spent discussing the case with each other in mid-November of 2004. 326 Thus,
Reyna is paying Mrs. Moreno for time she spends talking with her husband about the
case. There are no reports documenting what happened here. This amount may coincide
with the November meeting with Ruth Friedman.
Similarly, on December 1, 2004, 327 Moreno was also given and additional
$200.00 for “lost wages.” 328 What is odd about this payment is that Reyna met with
Moreno at his job site and Reyna noted that the interview ended when Moreno looked
concerned about returning to work. It does not appear from Reyna’s records that Moreno
actually had lost wages. If he was not being compensated for actually missing work,
there are serious questions about why he was given the money.
Reyna’s records also indicate that he bought dinner for the Moreno family on
December 18, 2004. 329 The meal was at the Marriot Hotel and totaled $156.82. 330 On
January 22, 2005, Reyna’s records reveal a $48.78 meal with the Moreno family. 331

326

Handwritten Receipt signed by the Morenos.
There is some confusion in Reyna’s records as to whether Reyna also made a payment of $200 on
November 30, 2004. Reyna met with Moreno on both November 30th and December 1st. His notes indicate
that he paid Moreno $200 on November 30th for lost wages for a meeting that occurred after Moreno got off
of work; however, there is only one receipt signed by Moreno for lost wages dated December 1st for $200.
328
Richard Reyna Expense Reports.
329
Id.
330
Id.
331
Id.
327

62 of 113

There are no records indicating what took place during this meal. Another meal was
provided on February 11, 2005 and cost $58.51. 332
As stated before, Moreno agreed to give a videotaped interview to the NAACP
LDF. The video was to be recorded at a Marriot hotel located in San Antonio, Texas.
The night before the video was made Moreno and his family were provided a hotel room
in San Antonio, the city of their residence. The total cost for the night was $232.50 and
included not only the room, but also a $72.49 charge for room service, $26.92 for movies,
and $22.59 for video games. 333 $200.00 more was paid for lost wages on Sunday,
February 13, 2005. 334 All of the above costs were paid by the NAACP LDF.
The Morenos received their final payout of $400.00, $200 each, for a meeting
Reyna facilitated with Lise Olsen, the reporter from the Houston Chronicle, on June 25,
2005. 335
In total, Juan Moreno and his wife received at least $1,700 in cash payments and
services. 336

This is a considerable amount of money, especially for an admittedly

modest working family with limited means. In addition to the financial issues Reyna
references, Juan Moreno had serious property tax problems just a few years earlier.337 It
is possible that someone in Moreno’s circumstances would be influenced by these
payments and this is one more reason that Moreno’s credibility is damaged.

332

Id.
Id.
334
Id.
335
Id.
336
Id. Of this total, $1,200 was paid directly to the Morenos, $264.11 was directly for meals, and $232.50
was for the family’s hotel stay. Importantly, Reyna’s letters to Ruth Friedman detail at least two other
meals that are not reflected in his expense reports. We cannot, therefore, know the total amount of
compensation the Morenos ultimately received.
337
Bexar County District Clerk’s Records. In addition, in February of 2002, the Internal Revenue Service
obtained a federal tax lien against Moreno in the amount of $67,459. Id.
333

63 of 113

E. MORENO’S STATEMENT TO THIS INVESTIGATION
The NAACP LDF’s investigation raises serious questions about Juan Moreno’s
current assertions of Cantu’s innocence.

Moreno was contacted directly by this

investigation and he and his lawyer, Gerald Goldstein, agreed to an interview with
representatives of the Bexar County Criminal District Attorney’s Office concerning the
Cantu case. This recorded interview took place at Mr. Goldstein’s office on February 8,
2007. Moreno was not under oath at the time and the interview was conducted both in
Spanish and in English with a Spanish translator.
During this interview, Moreno recalled building the house on Briggs Street with
his brother, Eusebio, and other friends. 338 In this regard, he knows a person named Rigo
that he has worked with in the past. 339 He described him as just a work friend. 340 He
could not recall if Rigo worked with him on the Briggs Street house. 341
Despite what Moreno had said in the past to police and at trial, he now claims that
he had no problems with the young kids in the neighborhood while they were building
the house. 342 He currently has no recollection of any incidents where the kids were
shooting guns. 343 He does recall, however, an incident at the time before the shooting
where three sixteen or seventeen year-old kids were in back of the house, digging. 344
According to Moreno, his neighbor approached the group and told them that they were on

338

Juan Moreno Interview, February 8, 2007.
Id.
340
Id.
341
Id.
342
Id.
343
Id.
344
Id.
339

64 of 113

someone else’s property and should not be digging. 345 They became angry. 346 He did
not provide any further details about this incident.
His recollection of the night of the murder is equally as vague. According to
Moreno, they arrived at the house about 9:00 p.m., tired, and ready for sleep. 347 He and
Pedro awoke to find the individuals already in the room. 348 The intruders demanded their
money and watches. 349 Moreno had about five hundred dollars in cash in his wallet at the
time, but did not recall how much money Pedro had. 350
Moreno recalled how the murder occurred. He stated that as Pedro went toward
the mattress, which had a gun underneath wrapped in a towel, the gun moved and the
intruders shot Pedro. 351 After shooting Pedro, they shot Moreno. 352 Moreno claims that
they did not know the shooters. 353
Moreno could not recall how he got out of the house, but the police told him that
he opened the back door. 354

When Eusebio arrived, he accompanied him in the

ambulance to the hospital. 355 Moreno stressed that he did not recall much of what
occurred.

According to Moreno: “I was unconscious.

I was all shot up.

I can’t

remember.” 356 Interestingly, although he did not recall telling the officer arriving on the

345

Id.
Id.
347
Id.
348
Id.
349
Id.
350
Id.
351
Id.
352
Id.
353
Id.
354
Id.
355
Id.
356
Id.
346

65 of 113

scene, Officer Sanchez, that the suspects were not illegals, he did confirm the substance
of what the officer noted that they were “Chicanos” from the United States. 357
Moreno now claims he does not remember who visited him while he was in the
hospital. 358 Because of this, he is unable to confirm or deny the police reports concerning
the hospital meetings.
When he got out of the hospital, he confirms that he went to live with his brother
(Eusebio) and brother’s wife (Alejandra) and that they moved twenty miles away. 359 He
acknowledged that his brother and sister-in-law were possibly afraid that the killers
would come looking for them. 360 Moreno himself never went back to Briggs Street. 361
Moreno frequently claims not to remember events that occurred back in 1984 and
1985. For example, Moreno does not remember ever talking to an investigator from the
District Attorney’s office. 362

Nor does he recall he or Eusebio ever giving written

statements to the police. 363 Likewise, while he recalls that he was shown photographs by
the police, he does not remember if he selected Ruben Cantu’s photograph from the
lineup. 364 He even denies that the signature on Cantu’s photo is his. 365
Despite the repeated claims of not remembering various conversations, details, or
facts, Moreno does repeatedly state that when he spoke to the police that he “always said
they were Hispanic males, one with curly hair (pelo chino) and one with straight hair.” 366

357

Id. This detail, provided so close in time to the shooting, strongly suggests that Moreno knew who the
assailants were.
358
Id.
359
Id.
360
Id.
361
Id.
362
Id.
363
Id.
364
Id.
365
Id.
366
Id.

66 of 113

He insists this is what he testified to in court and affirmed this to his family. 367 He also
claims that he told the police this from the very beginning. 368 These assertions are
completely refuted by the court transcripts and the investigative reports prepared by the
officers at the time.
Moreno gave conflicting answers as to whether he remembers testifying at
Cantu’s trial, initially saying he did not remember and later saying that he did. 369
Ultimately, he did admit that he remembered the lawyers asking him questions while in
court. 370 He could not, however, recall what he was asked or even whether a jury was
present. 371 It is clear that he does not recall how many times he testified in court. 372
When asked directly about his identification of Cantu during the trial, Moreno
was evasive saying what he remembered most was that he said they had curly hair (pelo
chino) and straight hair, and that he was told that they had him in custody, but ultimately
responded that “at the time, uh, one gets confused. You don’t know what you are being
asked, with so much treatment I was undergoing, because I needed so much treatment, all
the pressure that I was under, maybe, perhaps, I could have said that.” 373 Again, the trial
transcript clearly establishes that Moreno never testified about curly hair (pelo chino) and
was positive in his identification of Ruben Cantu.
Ultimately, Moreno asserts that he was not sure of his identification of Ruben
Cantu at trial. 374 But the reason for this uncertainty remains unclear. It appears that his
confusion stems from the fact that he recalls Cantu as having different length hair at the
367

Id.
Id.
369
Id.
370
Id.
371
Id.
372
Id.
373
Id.
374
Id.
368

67 of 113

time of trial than the night of the murder. According to Moreno, this was “because, when
he broke into the house, my house, he had curly hair (pelo chino). When he was in the
courtroom, his hair was short.” 375 What is particularly telling is that at no time during the
interview did Moreno directly say that Cantu was not the shooter. Moreno claimed he
felt pressured and stressed during this meeting, but offered little in the way of explaining
the source or how this directly affected him. 376 He also said he felt pressured by the
police at the time. 377
When asked about police pressure, he could only say that it was “perhaps because
they were coming so often” but he affirmatively stated that he was not afraid of the
police. 378

He even admitted that he never told anyone at the time that he felt

pressured. 379 Given these vague and unspecific allegations, there is no reason to believe
that any of the officers investigating the case did anything improper to influence Moreno.
It seems more likely that Moreno is simply searching for an explanation for his present
day recantation.
Moreno’s recollection of his meetings with Richard Reyna, the NAACP LDF
investigator, is equally as vague, despite how recently they occurred. Moreno recalls that
at their first meeting, Reyna met Moreno at his home and explained the case to him. 380
According to Moreno, Reyna told him,
[about] the case, how it happened, where it happened, and all that.
He asked me in the case, what it was, who had died and all that. 381
Reyna also showed Moreno photographs and papers. 382
375

Id.
Id.
377
Id.
378
Id.
379
Id.
380
Id.
381
Id.
376

68 of 113

According to Moreno, Reyna also told him about the witnesses and Waco. 383
Moreno recalled Reyna telling him something about a brother or friend saying that Cantu
was in Waco and was going to spend the night. 384 Reyna told Moreno that these people
did not know each other. 385 Reyna presented all of this information as fact. 386
Moreno recalled the incident with the individuals back behind the house to
Reyna. 387 He initially indicates that he told Reyna that this was the first time he saw
Cantu. 388 But he later claims he does not remember.389 But Moreno did not recall telling
Reyna that he was sure that Cantu was the person that shot him. 390

According to

Moreno, he met with Reyna six or seven times and would speak with him on the
phone. 391 He also acknowledged that Reyna paid him for missing work, claiming that he
only received $200 for a day’s worth of missed work. 392
Moreno also discussed how Reyna conducted a photographic lineup. Reyna
initially showed him several pictures, about five people. 393 Reyna would show him
pictures and say “this is the man, right?” 394 Reyna apparently wanted to know if Moreno

382

Id.
Id.
384
Id.
385
Id. It is important to note that Reyna knew the falsity of this assertion.
386
Id.
387
Id.
388
Id.
389
Id.
390
Id.
391
Id.
392
Id. It is clear from Reyna’s records, however, that Moreno’s recollection of his interaction with Reyna
is not true. Reyna documents that Moreno told him upon their first meeting that he was sure Cantu was the
person who shot him. Reyna’s records also establish that Moreno received more than $200 as
compensation for “missed work.”
393
Id.
394
Id.
383

69 of 113

recognized any of them. 395 While Moreno did not remember names, he did recognize
some as having lived in the neighborhood. 396
Moreno claims Reyna also showed him a picture of Ramiro Reyes, identified him,
and told Moreno that he was the curly haired (pelo chino) one and was on the loose. 397
He specifically told Moreno that “he was the curly haired man that had broken in”, but
did not tell him that he was the one that shot him. 398 Reyna did, however, tell Moreno
that he had spoken to David Garza and that Garza told Reyna that Cantu was not the
shooter and that it was Reyes. 399 Moreno cannot recall during which meeting these
things happened. 400
Given Reyna’s methods and his assertions concerning Ramiro Reyes’
involvement, it is not at all surprising that Moreno is confused as to whether Reyes was
involved. Moreno admits that his current identification of Reyes is only based on the
hair. 401 Moreno also admits the possibility that he told Reyna after being shown Reyes
picture that he did not know the person or anyone with that type of hair. 402 Moreno is
clearly not certain in his current identification saying that he “can’t say he is guilty”
adding that he did not “know enough to tell you who to take to court.” 403 After his
meetings with Reyna, all Moreno can now say is that he does not know who shot him,
only that the person had curly hair (pelo chino). 404

395

Id.
Id.
397
Id.
398
Id.
399
Id.
400
Id.
401
Id.
402
Id.
403
Id.
404
Id.
396

70 of 113

While Moreno acknowledged that he was initially reluctant to identify Cantu
because he was afraid that “he could come back to finish us off”, he now claims that he
was not scared. 405 According to Moreno, his reluctance to make the identification was
related to the stress of the lawyers and the court, not the fear. 406 And while he claimed
that his family’s move to another residence was not motivated by fear, he did say they did
it because they believed the shooters could come looking for them and finish them off. 407
Again, this is completely contrary to the known facts and recollection of Moreno’s
family.
Even after this interview, it is still not clear that Moreno is recanting his
identification of Cantu as being involved. Rather, he is stating that he only recognized
the shooter by his curly hair (pelo chino). When Moreno discusses the incident, he is
vague and claims to not recall many of the most important details from this time.
Moreno does not claim that he was pressured to lie or falsely identify Cantu, but only that
he felt pressure. His claim that he only identified Cantu because officers told him that
they caught the shooters, does not explain the detail of his testimony or the certainty with
which he testified. Moreno’s current assertions are also completely different from what
he told Richard Reyna during the early stages of his meetings with him.

V. THE ALIBI & THE CONSPIRACY: CLAIMS OF CANTU’S INNOCENCE
A. THE ALIBI
In order to fairly evaluate the claims of Cantu’s innocence, any evidence
suggesting that he was not involved must also be critically evaluated. During the trial,
Mary Isabel Garcia testified that Cantu was staying at her home in Waco at the time of
405

Id.
Id.
407
Id.
406

71 of 113

the shooting. Although the jury rejected her testimony and convicted Cantu, there were
other witnesses who allegedly could have corroborated the alibi but did not testify. All of
the potential alibi witnesses have been contacted by this investigation.
ELOY GONZALES
The NAACP LDF has offered the claims of several “witnesses” who claim that
Cantu was in Waco, Texas at the time of the shooting. The person alleging to have the
most detailed recollection of the Waco trip is Eloy Gonzales. According to Eloy, he,
Cantu, and his brother drove up to Waco. 408 He claims that he and his brother, Jose
“Blackie”, along with Ruben had gotten drunk at a bar in San Antonio when they made
the decision to go to Waco. 409 They left when the bar closed some time around 2:00 a.m.
The group woke up in his sister’s, Mary Garcia, yard in Waco and she made them
breakfast. While he does not recall the specific date, he does state that it was “around
November”. 410
The group later went “shopping” for Ford trucks. 411 They found a car lot on
Franklin and Waco Drive, and saw a 1979 “cherry” red Ford Ranger that they decided
they would either buy or steal. 412 The group returned that night and stole the truck. 413
The group left for San Antonio with the truck two or three days later. 414 Eloy claims that
the truck was recovered by DPS two weeks later and ended up back on the lot where it
had originally been stolen. 415

408

Sworn Statement of Eloy Hernandez Gonzales, March 29, 2006.
Id.
410
Id.
411
Id.
412
Id.
413
Id.
414
Id.
415
Id.
409

72 of 113

About six hours after they got back to San Antonio, they heard “through the grape
vine” that the police were looking for Cantu about a shooting. 416 Eloy also says that he
thinks the shooting occurred the day they came back.417 If this is true, then Eloy does not
actually provide an alibi for Ruben Cantu.
In April of 1985, Eloy gave a short statement saying that Cantu was with him in
Waco the week of the shooting, although he did not recall the exact date. 418 He also
stated that he was willing to testify on behalf of Cantu. 419
Despite concerted efforts during this investigation, that included a full review of
the law enforcement records relating to stolen vehicles in the Waco area during the month
of November 1984, no vehicle theft even remotely matching the description given by
Eloy occurred. Even Richard Reyna checked the Waco newspapers for articles detailing
vehicle thefts during that time period and could not find anything.
Any alibi that Eloy now provides for Cantu must also be assessed in light of his
chronic drug use, his criminal history, his relationship to the Cantu family, and the money
and gifts he has received from the NAACP LDF for cooperating with their
investigation. 420 Eloy’s convictions date back to 1982 and include aggravated assault
with a weapon, engaging in organized crime, and theft. 421 It is also worth noting that he
is the godfather of Robert Cantu’s son. 422 Given this history, there is little to indicate he
is a credible witness.

416

Id.
Id.
418
Affidavit of Eloy Gonzales, April 4, 1985.
419
Id.
420
Richard Reyna Expense Reports.
421
Criminal History of Eloy Gonzales.
422
Sworn Statement of Cindy Segovia, August 7, 2006.
417

73 of 113

MARY ISABEL GARCIA
In addition to Eloy Gonzales, his sister, Mary Isabel Garcia, also tries to provide
the alibi. In an affidavit given before the trial, she claimed that Cantu arrived at her
house on November 8, 1984, at about 5:30 p.m. with her brothers Joe, Ralph, and
Eloy. 423 According to Garcia, the group was still there sometime before midnight but
was gone by the time she woke up the next morning. 424 She did not provide any other
information about the alibi in this affidavit.
At trial, she testified that Cantu and her brothers, Eloy, Joe, and Ralph, came to
her home in Waco during the first week of November 1984. 425 She claimed that they
were there Monday through Thursday. 426 She particularly remembered that they were
there on Thursday, November 8th; because that was the day she usually started her
menstrual cycle. 427 She testified that they arrived at her house around 5:30 p.m. that day
and were there watching television until 12:30 a.m. when she finally went to bed. 428
Surprisingly, Garcia even recalled exactly what she had prepared for breakfast that day
and what she made for dinner on that night and an earlier evening. 429
Garcia still maintains today that Cantu, along with her brothers, Eloy, Jose, and
Ralph, came to her house in Waco during the first week of November 1984. 430 Unlike
her original affidavit, she testified at trial and presently claims that they stayed three or

423

Affidavit of Mary Isabel Garcia, July 10, 1985.
Id.
425
Ct. R. vol. IX of X, at 2635.
426
Id. at 2635-36.
427
Id. at 2636 & 2638.
428
Id. at 2637-38.
429
Id. at 2653, 2642, & 2645.
430
Sworn Statement of Mary Isabel Garcia, June 27, 2006.
424

74 of 113

four days. 431 She also knows they were there until at least Thursday, because she usually
started her menstrual cycle on the eighth of each month. 432
Garcia does not know why her brothers did not testify during Cantu’s trial and has
not asked them. 433 Despite the certainty she expresses, the jury determined that she was
not credible and rejected her testimony.
DORA ANN GARCIA
Dora Ann Garcia, Mary Isabel’s daughter, provided a similar affidavit in July of
1985. Like her mother, Garcia stated that Cantu and her uncles arrived at about 5:30 p.m.
on Thursday, November 8, 1984. 434 Since she provided the affidavit back in 1985, it is
unclear why she did not testify. When recently contacted, she stated that she has no
independent recollection of anything that occurred back then. 435 She did recall, however,
that her mother’s younger brothers would occasionally visit, but that they would not stay
for very long. 436
RAFAEL ALEJANDRO
Eloy’s brother, Rafael Alejandro, contradicts Eloy’s version. Rafael has stated
that, “I don’t remember going to visit my sister Maria in Waco, Texas with Eloy, Jose or
Ruben… .” 437 When he did go to Waco, he would go by himself or with his sister
Hortencia. 438

He does not remember stealing cars or trucks in Waco and does not

remember if Eloy, Jose, or Ruben ever stole any vehicles in Waco. 439 At trial, Mary

431

Id.
Id.
433
Id.
434
Affidavit of Dora Ann Garcia, July 10, 1985.
435
Sworn Statement of Dora Ann Garcia, August 23, 2006.
436
Id.
437
Sworn Statement of Rafael Alejandro, April 13, 2006.
438
Id.
439
Id.
432

75 of 113

Isabel testified that he had been present during the trial but that he had left to go rest and
was unavailable testify because he had to work that night.
Rafael has an even lengthier criminal record than Eloy. He has been convicted of
theft almost twenty times, three of which were felonies. 440 He has also been convicted
twice for possession of marijuana and twice for possession of a controlled substance with
the intent to deliver. 441 He has been convicted of escape and for failing to identify
himself to a police officer. Most recently he was convicted of assault. 442
JOSE ALEJANDRO
As for Jose “Blackie” Alejandro, he has refused to provide a written sworn
statement for use in this investigation. He did, however, state that he did not specifically
recall if he was in Waco with Cantu at the time of the shooting, but that his brother Eloy
told him they were in Waco. 443 In April of 1985, he gave a statement concerning the De
La Luz shooting in which he asserted that Cantu was with him at the “Skybaru (Sky
Room) Club, located off the Laredo Highway, the day of the alleged crime for about an
hour.” 444 He further stated that he did not remember “the exact date” but he was “willing
to testify in (sic) behalf of Ruben Cantu.” 445 It is clear that the Briggs Street shooting is
not the only case for which Eloy’s family members claim they are willing to testify for
Cantu.
Like his brothers, Blackie has a significant criminal record and a history of drug
abuse. 446 He has been convicted a dozen times for misdemeanor and felony thefts. 447 He
440

Criminal History of Rafael Alejandro.
Id.
442
Id.
443
Interview of Jose Alejandro, July 28, 2006.
444
Sworn Statement of Joe Alejandro, April 30, 1985.
445
Id.
446
Criminal History of Jose Alejandro.
441

76 of 113

has also been convicted for possessing marijuana, and twice for possessing a controlled
substance with the intent to deliver. 448 In addition, he is currently under indictment for
the offense of possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver in Bexar
County. 449
ASSESSING THE ALIBI
Despite the credibility issues with Eloy and his brothers, there are more serious
problems with the alibi. During his first meeting with the police seventeen days after the
murder, on November 25, 1984, Cantu denied any knowledge of the crime. 450
Importantly, Cantu did not tell the police that he was in Waco on the night of the
shooting. 451 This was his first opportunity to raise the alibi and yet he remained silent as
to his whereabouts.
Even odder is the fact that his father, Fidencio Cantu, was present during this
police interview. 452 Even if Ruben Cantu was unwilling to provide the information, there
is absolutely no reason why his father would not have mentioned the alibi. Whatever
criticisms some might have about Fidencio Cantu’s parenting, he was very involved with
matters that affected Ruben. 453 If Fidencio Cantu would bully a teenage boy like Eugene
Reyes into signing a false statement, 454 he surely would have told the police if his son
had an airtight alibi for the night of the murder.

447

Id.
Id.
449
Id.
450
Supplementary Report of Det. Herring, December 14, 1984; Sworn Statement of Joe Cloud, February 1,
2006.
451
Id.
452
Id.
453
Sworn Statement of Richard Calhoun, August 10, 2006.
454
Sworn Statement of Eugene Reyes, August 21, 2006. This incident is detailed later in this memorandum.
448

77 of 113

In addition, Ruben’s sister, Cindy Segovia, does not believe that Ruben went to
Waco with Eloy for a week as he “always was at home.” 455 Currently, Fidencio Cantu
claims that while he did not know where his son was on the night of the murder, the first
time he heard that his son was in Waco was at the trial. 456 Also supporting this is Robert
Cantu who says to his knowledge Ruben never stole cars with Eloy. 457 Larry Cantu
seems to confirm this, as when he was not in prison, he never knew Ruben to associate
with Eloy. 458
Even the alibi witnesses are inconsistent. Both Mary Isabel and Dora initially
contended in their affidavits that the brothers and Cantu arrived at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday,
November 8, 1984. While he does not recall the date, Eloy was very clear that the group
did not leave San Antonio until sometime after 2:00 a.m. and that his sister made
breakfast for the group. In addition, during Mary Isabel’s testimony she asserted that the
other witness who could have testified was Rafael. Her explanation for his unavailability
to testify is puzzling. According to Mary Isabel, Rafael had been present outside the
courtroom but left before testifying because he had to go home and rest before working
that night. 459 Given the severity of the charges, it is incomprehensible that Rafael would
have left the courthouse that day to go take a nap when could have testified regarding
Cantu’s alleged alibi. Mary Isabel does not mention either Eloy or Jose being present at
the courthouse to testify.
Furthermore, Eloy Gonzales’ claim that they stole a 1979 “cherry” red Ford
Ranger pickup the night of the murder is also suspect. As already explained, there is
455

Sworn Statement of Cindy Segovia, August 7, 2006.
Sworn Statement of Fidencio K. Cantu, August 23-24, 2006.
457
Sworn Statement of Robert Cantu, August 24 & 29, 2006.
458
Sworn Statement of Larry Cantu, August 8, 2006.
459
Ct. R. vol. IX of X, at 2652-53.
456

78 of 113

absolutely no evidence that a truck matching this description was stolen around the time
of the shooting. There is evidence, however, implicating Ruben Cantu in the theft of
what at the time was a brand new “cherry” red and white Ford F-150 pickup less than two
weeks before the murder. On October 26, 1984, a 1984 Ford F-150 pickup was reported
stolen from 518 Briggs Street. 460

It is entirely possible that Eloy Gonzales does

remember the group stealing a Ford truck, but not on the night of the murder, and not in
Waco.

In any case, Cantu’s alibi is not supported by the evidence and is highly

implausible.
It must also be remembered that the alibi was presented to the jury at Cantu’s
trial. In fact, the jury was specifically charged on the issues of alibi and misidentification
and was instructed to acquit Cantu if it believed the defense. 461 The jury considered and
rejected the evidence presented to support it. Given the inconsistency in the stories, as
well as the credibility issues of the additional witnesses, there is little reason to believe
that the jury would have found the alibi credible if the additional witnesses had testified
at trial.

460
461

San Antonio Police Department Assignment No. 424123.
Ct. R. vol. IX of X, at 2693. Specifically, the jury received the following charge:
One of the defenses raised by the evidence in this case is what
is known in law as the defense of alibi or mistaken identification; that
is, that at the time of the commission of the offense, if any, the
defendant was at another and different place from that at which the
offense, if any, was committed, and therefore was not and could not
have been the person who committed the offense.
Now, if you have a reasonable doubt as to the presence of the
defendant at the place where the offense was committed, if an offense
was committed, at the time of the commission thereof, then you will
find the defendant not guilty.

Id.

79 of 113

B. THE CONSPIRACY
Despite Moreno’s prior statements of fear and reluctance to identify Cantu, and
his actions after the shooting and during the subsequent trial, he now says that he was not
fearful and only identified Ruben Cantu because officers told him they had the shooter in
custody. He now also claims that from the very beginning he was telling officers that one
of the person’s involved had curly hair (pelo chino). The articles appearing in the
Houston Chronicle have suggested that the reason for this pressure is that Cantu had shot
an off-duty police officer in early March of 1985. They allege that because there were
problems pursuing the De La Luz shooting, Moreno was pressured to falsely identify
Cantu.

Despite Richard Reyna’s improper investigative techniques, the reported

suggestions of police irresponsibility require an analysis.
CANTU WAS DEVELOPED AS A SUSPECT EARLY IN THE INVESTIGATION
Detective James Herring developed Ruben Cantu and David Garza as suspects in
November and December of 1984 based on information he received from a patrol officer
and a district patrol officer. 462

As Detective Herring recalls, the patrol officer was

possibly one who worked in the neighborhood where the shooting took place. 463 The
other officer had obtained the information from a teacher at South San High School. 464
Detective Herring’s recollection is corroborated by members of the school’s faculty and
administration.
Richard Calhoun, who was the vice principal at South San High School at the
time, remembered hearing a report on the radio about the murder on Briggs Street and

462

Supplementary Report of Det. J. Herring, December 14, 1984.
Sworn Statement of James Herring, August 3, 2006.
464
Id.
463

80 of 113

wondered if Ruben Cantu was involved. 465 By the time he arrived on campus that day,
there were already rumors circulating that Cantu and Garza were involved. 466 According
to Calhoun:
When I got to school, the buzz was going around with
many of the students talking about the murder. Many of
these students were claiming that Ruben Cantu and David
Garza were involved. Apparently Ruben and David had
been bragging and talking about doing the murder and
robbery. 467
Calhoun does not recall who provided this information to him. 468 It was his practice not
to inform police officers of the identity of his sources because he was concerned for
student safety and was fearful of retaliation. 469 Robert Sidle, a retired teacher who taught
at South San High School in the fall of 1984, confirms that there was gossip that Ruben
Cantu and David Garza were involved in the murder. 470 Thus, rumors about the break-in
and murder were circulating immediately after the incident occurred and Cantu and Garza
were being talked about as being responsible.471
Daniel Thompson, a San Antonio Police Officer at the time, was working a parttime job as an off-duty officer at South San High School, in the fall of 1984. 472 On

465

Sworn Statement of Richard Calhoun, August 10, 2006.
Id.
467
Id.
468
Id.
469
Id.
470
Sworn Statement of Robert Jerome Sidle, August 15, 2006.
471
Interestingly, the same thing happened after the Officer De La Luz shooting. According to Sidle, “After
the shooting in the pool hall that involved Ruben Cantu, rumors started being spread around school that
Ruben had shot a police officer.” Sworn Statement of Robert Jerome Sidle, August 15, 2006. These new
rumors also intensified the earlier ones about Cantu’s involvement in the Briggs Street murder. Id.
472
Sworn Statement of Daniel E. Thompson, August 14, 2006.
466

81 of 113

December 1, 1984, he was approached by a staff member, Mr. Sidle, and given the names
of Ruben Cantu, David Garza, and Ramiro Reyes. 473
Sidle told Officer Thompson that he had been told that three students were
involved in a capital murder. 474 Sidle had been told the details about the case by the
students but did not provide the details because he feared for his own safety. 475 Officer
Thompson believed Sidle to be nervous and concerned that someone might have seen
him talking to the officer. 476
In a report prepared after his meeting with Sidle, Officer Thompson briefly
recounted the incident:
THIS OFFICER WORKS OFF DUTY AT SOUTH SAN
HIGH SCHOOL 2515 NAVAJO & WAS CONTACTED
BY STAFF MEMBER MR. SEIDEL (sic) …WHO
STATED HE WAS TOLD BY SOME OF HIS
STUDENTS THAT ABOVE LISTED SUBJECTS WERE
ACTORS INVOLVED IN HOMICIDE & ATT.
HOMICIDE AT 605 BRIGGS ON 11-08-84. MR SEIDEL
(sic) IS CONCERNED FOR HIS OWN SAFETY &
STATED THAT HE WAS TOLD IN DETAIL HOW
OFFENSE OCCURRED. HE COULD NOT SUPPLY
ANY FURTHER DESCRIPTION OR INFO ABOUT THE
SUBJECTS. 477
With this information, the homicide detectives proceeded with the investigation.
NO EVIDENCE THAT POLICE PRESSURED MORENO
Other than Moreno’s extremely vague assertions of feeling pressure, there is
nothing to suggest that he was actively pressured by the police to identify Cantu after the
shooting of Officer De La Luz. Moreno even initially tells Richard Reyna that he was

473

Id.
Id.
475
Id.
476
Id.
477
Assignment Report of D. Thompson, December 1, 1984.
474

82 of 113

not pressured to identify Cantu. 478 He does not provide any specific information or
details to support his contention that he felt pressure. The fact that the police attempted
to see if Moreno could identify Gomez’s murderer, and that this attempt may have been
triggered by Cantu’s shooting of Officer De La Luz, does not establish that law
enforcement officials engaged in any improper conduct during the investigation of the
Briggs Street shooting. If the police had failed to contact Moreno after the De La Luz
shooting, they would have been derelict in their duties as peace officers.
DE LA LUZ SHOOTING―MARCH 1, 1985
The Houston Chronicle has suggested in published articles that Moreno was
pressured to identify Ruben Cantu as the shooter because Cantu had shot an off duty
police officer, Joe De La Luz. The newspaper insinuates that Bill Ewell, a former San
Antonio Police Sergeant assigned to the homicide unit, pushed to have Cantu identified
as a result of his friendship with Officer De La Luz. 479 Consequently, this theory needs
to be addressed.
Officer De La Luz was shot on March 1, 1985, nearly four months after Moreno
was shot and Gomez was murdered. And, as already detailed earlier in this report, Ruben
Cantu and David Garza had been developed as suspects in November of 1984, within a
month of the murder, and several months before the De La Luz shooting. Cantu was
being linked to the murder by students at South San High School the day after the
murder. And within a couple of days of the murder, “the rumor in the neighborhood was
that Ruben Cantu had committed the murder.” 480

478

Reyna Letter to Ruth Friedman, August 23, 2004.
It is important to note that Ruben Cantu was implicated in Gomez’s murder months before the De La
Luz shooting occurred.
480
Sworn Statement of Sandra Lopez, August 2, 2006.
479

83 of 113

THE IDENTIFICATION PROCESS
Even if the De La Luz shooting provided a motive to renew efforts in the Gomez
capital murder investigation, it does nothing to explain why there is no mention of curly
hair (pelo chino) in any of the early reports generated right after the Briggs Street
shooting. None of the officers during this first part of the investigation would have had
any reason to fail to note the description or to want to tie Cantu to the crime. The
documented facts establish that several months before De La Luz was shot, Cantu and
Garza were the main suspects in the Moreno shooting and the Gomez murder.
In contrast to Moreno’s vague allegations of pressure, the officers involved in the
investigation and the photographic identification of Cantu by Moreno steadfastly
maintain that he was not pressured into making the identification.

This issue was

thoroughly litigated pretrial, during the trial, on appeal, and other various post-conviction
proceedings. Each time the issue was raised the jury or the court hearing the matter
concluded that Moreno’s identification of Cantu was based on his recollection of the
shooting and not tainted by any subsequent police conduct.

If members of law

enforcement were attempting to pressure Moreno to force the identification, they would
not have meticulously detailed their meetings with Moreno. The thoroughness of these
police reports demonstrates the officers’ efforts to accurately detail and document the
events occurring during the course of the investigation. It would have been much easier
to simply state that Moreno picked Cantu out of a lineup.
The police officers that met with Moreno in December of 1984 while he was still
in the hospital, recalled his reaction to seeing the picture of Cantu in the lineup. In fact,
Detective Herring noted that, “Based on Juan Moreno’s actions while looking at the

84 of 113

photographs we believed he did recognize Ruben Cantu as the person who had shot him
and Pedro Gomez and was to (sic) afraid to admit it.” 481 As Detective Herring noted in
his report at the time,
[In the] lineup was a Ruben Cantu which I had reason to
believe was one of the actors and the person who did
actual shooting of both comp;s (sic). Det. Garza showed
comp [Moreno] the lineup and as he got to the actor Cantu
he passed him up and did not even look at him the first
time. He said the man who shot him was not in lineup. We
asked him to look again and he did and again he passed up
the picture of Cantu completely. It was obvious to this det
and det Garza that comp [Moreno] was scared and was not
going to pick actor out. 482
This notation was made months before Officer De La Luz was shot and well before there
would have been any suggested reason for the police to pressure Moreno. Detective
Herring is also certain that Moreno, through the officers who were translating, never gave
a physical description of the shooter. 483 Had Detective Herring been given a description,
he would have absolutely included it in his report. 484 Detective Herring is adamant that
Moreno was not pressured to make an identification of the person that shot him. 485
In addition, both Detectives Richard Garza and Joe Cloud have been interviewed
and emphatically state that they followed police procedures and Detective Garza adds
that, “Juan Moreno was not pressured by the police to make an identification of the
person who had shot him.” 486 Detective Cloud “did not see any police misconduct with
regards to this investigation.” 487 And as Detective Balleza made clear in his statement,

481

Sworn Statement of James Herring, January 31, 2006.
Supplementary Report, Det. J. Herring, December 14, 1984.
483
Sworn Statement of James Herring, August 3, 2006.
484
Id.
485
Id.
486
Sworn Statement of Richard Garza, February 1, 2006; Sworn Statement of Joe Cloud, February 1, 2006.
487
Sworn Statement of Joe Cloud, February 1, 2006.
482

85 of 113

there is no truth to the contention that Sergeant Ewell would do anything to get Cantu
because of the De La Luz shooting. 488 As he explained, “it would never happen.” 489
Detective Quintanilla, the officer who was present during both the identifications
of Cantu and Garza in March of 1985, directly responded to the allegations of police
pressure. According to Detective Quintanilla, “With regard to the recent comments made
by Juan Moreno where he stated the police pressured him into making a positive
identification of Ruben Cantu I would like to state the following: That at no time did any
police officers including myself pressure Juan Moreno into making an identification of
Mr. Cantu as the person who shot him and killed Mr. Gomez.” 490 In fact, no one present
during the photo lineup process has suggested Moreno was pressured to falsely identify
Cantu. And even Moreno never directly says that he was pressured to falsely identify
Cantu back in 1985. 491
Although the police had quickly developed Cantu and Garza as the suspects, the
investigation had stalled because the surviving witness had been too fearful to identify
Cantu. There is reason to believe that the Officer De La Luz shooting was motivated by
the investigation of the Briggs Street murder and shooting. According to Samuel Lopez,
Mario Ochoa, the man who drove Cantu away after the Officer De La Luz shooting, said
“Cantu was pissed because De La Luz was investigating Cantu for the murder on
Briggs.” 492 Given the possibility that the shooting of De La Luz was triggered by the
investigation of the Briggs Street murder, it is not surprising that the police would have
488

Sworn Statement of Santos C. Balleza, January 27, 2006.
Id.
490
Sworn Statement of Edward Quintanilla, January 31, 2006.
491
Interestingly, Moreno claimed he also felt pressure during the press conference at his attorneys’ office
on November 30, 2005.
492
Sworn Statement of Samuel A. Lopez, August 1, 2006. There is no indication that Officer De La Luz
was ever assigned to investigate the Briggs Street shooting. To the extent that Cantu may have believed as
much, it was apparently an assumption on his part.
489

86 of 113

increased their efforts to solve the Briggs Street case and re-interview Moreno, the
surviving eyewitness. The police could not ignore the possible connection between the
two acts of violence. The Briggs Street murder was becoming a cold case and any fresh
leads needed to be followed up on.
Even if the Officer De La Luz shooting had no connection with the murder of
Pedro Gomez, the officers were still justified in the efforts to see if Moreno could
positively identify Cantu. Not only had Cantu earlier avoided conviction for attempted
murder, 493 but his actions on the night of the Officer De La Luz shooting clearly show
that he was now emboldened by the fact that he had gotten away with a capital murder
and attempted capital murder. This feeling of invulnerability manifested itself in the act
of shooting a police officer in a crowded bar. Re-interviewing Moreno and seeing if he
would identify Cantu does not suggest a conspiracy, it suggests common sense. The
police believed Moreno was fearful and holding back information on the identity of the
shooter, a fact corroborated by Moreno’s brother.
Contacting Moreno again, some two and a half months after their last contact with
him, is not a harassing or pressure building course of conduct.

Moreno’s current

statements intimate that his original identification of Cantu was tainted by police
pressure. The actual context in which the identification was made does not support such
a conclusion. After the December 1984 meeting that occurred while Moreno was still in
the hospital, police officials did not contact Moreno again until March of 1985. With so
little contact with Moreno, it is difficult to believe that he felt any significant pressure
from the police.

493

Cause No. 83-JUV-0841.

87 of 113

As for the meetings in March of 1985, the first, on March 2nd, took place at
Moreno’s brother Eusebio’s home. The next day, a second meeting took place at the
police station. During both of these meetings Eusebio was present. It seems highly
unlikely that these officers, if they in fact had the alleged motive to get Cantu, would be
pressuring Moreno with his brother present.

Not only would Eusebio’s presence

undermine any police pressure, he could also testify as a witness to any improper police
conduct.
Another factor that weighs strongly against the allegations of improper police
pressure is the relative lack of police presence during Cantu’s capital murder trial. All of
the parties involved observed that there was no discernable police presence in the
courtroom during the Cantu trial. In fact, the Texas Rules of Evidence prohibited the
presence of the officers who participated in the investigation and identification who were
witnesses, from being in the courtroom while other witnesses were testifying.494 Because
they could not be in the courtroom while Moreno and his brother were being questioned,
the officers involved surely knew that they risked exposure during the trial. Finally, the
officers involved would have understood the hyper scrutiny that applied to death penalty
cases by courts and activists groups. Even if they could have maintained a conspiracy
through the trial, they would have understood that the conspiracy would likely eventually
be exposed.
There was a layer of separation between Moreno and the police that existed in the
form of the District Attorney’s Office. Moreno spent considerable time meeting with
representatives of the District Attorney’s Office in the time period leading up to the trial.
Not only do these individuals deny that they pressured Moreno to falsely identify Cantu;
494

See TEX. R. EVID. 614.

88 of 113

they never got any feeling from Moreno that he had been pressured. Investigator Thuleen
states that at no point did he either pressure Moreno or otherwise get any pressure
himself. 495 According to Investigator Thuleen:
I don’t remember Juan Moreno ever telling me that SAPD
officers had pressured Juan into identifying Cantu. Juan
didn’t have any hesitations when he said he had seen Cantu
walk by the house and I felt Juan knew Cantu or knew of
him because he had seen Cantu walk by the house. 496
During Investigator Thuleen’s interview with Moreno, he gave a detailed account of the
crime and named Cantu and Garza as the actors. 497
Likewise, the prosecutors working on the case never got the feeling that Moreno
was unsure or hesitant in his identification of Cantu. 498 According to the lead prosecutor
in the case, Bruce Baxter, since the identification would be challenged, Baxter wanted to
ascertain how certain Moreno was in his identification of Cantu. 499 Baxter observed
Moreno to be a confident witness. 500 Moreno would not let Baxter “push him around on
the facts and stuck to what he remembered from the night of November 8.” 501 Moreno
“did not waver in his description of how Ruben had shot him and Pedro Gomez.” 502
Baxter elaborated on his meetings with Moreno:
Juan never expressed factual doubt about his identification
of Ruben Cantu, nor did he ever state that the police had
exerted pressure on him to make his identification of Cantu.
At no time did I sense that Moreno’s identification of Cantu
came from any influence by any outside persons. My clear
perception was and is today that Juan Moreno identified
495

Sworn Statement of Kenneth E. Thuleen, April 20, 2006.
Id.
497
Memo of K. E. Thuleen, April 8, 1985.
498
Sworn Statement John W. Harris, August 2, 2006; Sworn Statement of Bruce F. Baxter, August 18,
2006 (attached as appendix M).
499
Sworn Statement of Bruce F. Baxter, August 18, 2006 (attached as appendix M).
500
Id.
501
Id.
502
Id.
496

89 of 113

Ruben Cantu because Ruben Cantu was the man who shot
him and Pedro Gomez. 503
As Baxter succinctly put it, Moreno “never expressed uncertainty in his identification or
hesitation, or anything that would have raised a red flag….” 504
These meetings occurred well after the initial photo identification and the
investigating officers were not present and there is nothing to suggest that the police had
any further contact with Moreno. 505

Had Moreno truly felt pressured into falsely

identifying Cantu, he could have very easily said something to the prosecutors during
these meetings. All he had to do was express some doubt and equivocate as to his
identification. He could have easily qualified his identification of Cantu. He also could
have mentioned that the shooter had curly hair (pelo chino), but did not. 506

The

prosecution never received any information whatsoever from Moreno that the police had
in any way pressured him into identifying Cantu. 507
These meetings do not suggest that Moreno had any doubts that Cantu was the
shooter. As Baxter makes clear, “if, at any time, I would have had a doubt about the
accuracy of Juan Moreno’s identification, I would have had an ethical obligation to not
proceed with the case, particularly in light of the potential result.” 508 He continues, “I
took this obligation seriously and would not have proceeded to trial if I had felt Juan
Moreno was not credible or that the identification had been tainted in any way.” 509
There are other even stronger factors that undermine the contention that Moreno
was pressured into falsely identifying Ruben Cantu. Moreno was living with his brother
503

Id.
Id.
505
Id.
506
Id.
507
Id.
508
Id.
509
Id.
504

90 of 113

Eusebio and Eusebio’s wife, Alejandra, in the months leading up to and during Cantu’s
trial. Eusebio was ten years older than Juan. Not only was he Juan’s landlord and
employer, he was his protector.

As his older brother and only family in the United

States, Eusebio acted as a surrogate father to Juan. 510
Not only was Eusebio present at the police station when Juan Moreno made the
identification of Cantu, but the officers also had him give his own statement detailing the
meetings with the police. According to Eusebio:
I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT YESTERDAY, MARCH
2, 1985, ABOUT 4:30 PM TWO SAN ANTONIO POLICE
DEPARTMENT DETECTIVES, DRESSED IN PLAIN
CLOTHES WENT TO MY HOUSE TO TALK TO MY
BROTHER, JUAN. JUAN WAS HOME AND THE
DETECTIVES DID TALK TO JUAN. AND I WAS
PRESENT WHEN THE DETECTIVES TALKED TO
JUAN. THE DETECTIVES WANTED TO KNOW IF
JUAN REMEMBERED ONE OF THE INDIVIDUALS
THAT HAD SHOT HIM AND HAD KILLED PEDRO
ON NOVEMBER 9, 1984, AT 605 BRIGGS. I WOULD
LIKE TO CORRECT MYSELF, BY SAYING THAT I
HAD JUST GOTTEN HOME WHEN THE TWO
DETECTIVES HAD ASKED JUAN ABOUT WHEN HE
GOT SHOT AND PEDRO WAS KILLED. AND THE
DETECTIVES HAD ALREADY SHOWED JUAN THE
COLOR PICTURES AND I THINK THERE WERE FIVE
OF THEM WHEN I GOT HOME FROM WORK. WHEN
I GOT HOME I ASKED THE DETECTIVES TO SHOW
ME THE PICTURES AND THEY DID SHOW THEM TO
ME. THE DETECTIVES TOLD ME THAT JUAN
COULD
NOT
POSITIVELY
IDENTIFY
THE
INDIVIDUAL FROM THE PHOTOS THAT THEY HAD
SHOWED HIM OF THE PERSON THAT HAD BEEN
INVOLVED IN THE MURDER OF PEDRO GOMEZ.
BUT THEY ALSO TOLD ME THAT JUAN HAD TOLD
THEM THAT JUAN MAY BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY
THIS MAN IF HE COULD SEE THE MAN IN PERSON.
IN MY OPINION, JUAN DID NOT WANT TO
IDENTIFY THE PICTURE OF THE MAN THAT
WAS INVOLVED IN THE MURDER OF PEDRO AS
510

Sworn Statement of Alejandra Moreno, August 4, 2006.

91 of 113

JUAN IS AFRAID OF THIS MAN BECAUSE JUAN
WAS ALSO SHOT IN THIS INCIDENT AND JUAN
ALMOST DIED ALSO. THE REASON WE CAME TO
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TODAY, SUNDAY,
MARCH 3, 1985, IS BECAUSE DET. QUINTANILLA
CAME TO MY HOUSE THIS MORNING AND TOLD
US THAT JUAN NEEDED TO COME INTO THE
STATION TO SEE IF HE COULD IDENTIFY THE MAN
THAT HAD SHOT HIM AND MY BROTHER-IN-LAW
IN PERSON. 511
Thus, Eusebio reached the same conclusion as the officers as to Moreno’s reluctance to
identify the shooter.
If the officers were planning on committing a crime by framing Cantu, it does not
make sense that they would have allowed Eusebio to be with Moreno the next day at the
police station when Moreno actually identified Cantu’s picture.

The familiar and

protective presence of his brother would surely operate against any coercive police
tactics. Moreover, these officers would not have given Eusebio the opportunity to give
his own statement detailing his knowledge of how the lineup was conducted. Yet, this is
exactly what happened.

Eusebio corroborates the police officers’ conclusions of

Moreno’s actions and body language. Juan Moreno knew who the shooter was but was
afraid to identify him.
Eusebio was not interviewed as a part of this investigation because he died in
2003. However, Eusebio’s wife, Alejandra, 512 was also present and remembers the
events. Like the prosecutors, she confirms that there was nothing to suggest that Juan
was under any pressure to identify Cantu. She elaborates on this in a recent sworn
statement:

511
512

Sworn Statement of Eusebio Alanis Moreno, March 3, 1985 (emphasis added) (attached as appendix E).
Alejandra Moreno is the sister of Pedro Gomez.

92 of 113

I am not aware of any pressure being put on Juan by the
police to identify who shot him and Pedro. Juan never said
he felt pressure from the police to identify those who shot
him. Eusebio nor I ever pressured him to identify them
either.
I went to court with Eusebio and Juan for the trial. Juan
never expressed reservations about testifying or doubts
about his identification of Ruben Cantu. Nor did Eusebio
tell me that Juan had express (sic) doubts about testifying
against or his identification of Ruben Cantu. If Juan had
expressed doubts about the identity of those who were
charged I would have discouraged him from testifying. It
was important to me that the right people be charged and
convicted, not just charge innocent people. 513
Moreno, with his family, the people he presumably felt the safest with, gives no
indication that he has been pressured in anyway or that he was unsure about who shot
him. Just the opposite, the people around him would have tried to discourage him from
testifying falsely.
Also undermining the false identification theory is Moreno’s ex-wife, Mary Luna.
She and Juan began dating before the shooting and they married in April of 1987. 514
Luna says that Moreno never told her that anyone pressured him into making the
identification in the case. If something improper had occurred, Moreno would likely
have said something about it to those he was closest to. That he did not is telling.
A conspiracy between the officers is not likely or logical.

It is simply

incomprehensible and practically impossible for six police detectives who over the
decades have had successful careers to engage in a conspiracy to have framed Ruben
Cantu. Each officer would know that the story would fall apart at pretrial and trial
hearings. In addition to the officers, the conspiracy would hinge on a 19-year-old illegal,

513
514

Sworn Statement of Alejandra Moreno, August 4, 2006.
Sworn Statement of Mary L. Luna, August 8, 2006. The couple divorced in 1991.

93 of 113

unsophisticated, non-English speaking immigrant and his compliant brother to keep the
story straight. It defies logic that these officers would risk their careers and personal
liberty, prosecution, and reputations, and the livelihood that supports their families, all for
the sake of convicting Ruben Cantu for a heinous crime that they are now alleged to have
known he did not commit.
MORENO’S INITIAL RELUCTANCE TO IDENTIFY CANTU
While there is nothing other than Moreno’s current assertion of pressure to
support the claim that he falsely identified Cantu in the months after the murder, there is
strong evidence to support the explanation Moreno gave for the delay at the time it
happened. That is, that he was afraid to identify Cantu.
Moreno did more than just say he was scared, he acted because of that fear.
Alejandra Moreno, Eusebio’s wife, explained that after getting out of the hospital,
Moreno came to live with them on Five Palms. She very clearly remembers that they had
moved from their apartment on Quintana because they were “afraid to stay in the
apartment or the new house” they had just finished building at 605 Briggs Street. 515
Alejandra explained that they “wanted to get out of the area.” 516
Given the horrific and violent injuries Moreno suffered the night his friend was
murdered, it is certainly understandable that he would be scared of the person that
perpetrated the crime against him. But it was not just the crime that gave Moreno reason
to fear, everything about Ruben Cantu and his family and how they operated in the area
with what must have seemed like impunity would cause any rational person to be afraid.

515
516

Sworn Statement of Alejandra Moreno, August 4, 2006.
Id.

94 of 113

Even today Moreno acknowledges that his family likely moved as a result of the fear of
retaliation. 517
This fear is completely consistent with Ruben Cantu’s and his family’s reputation
in the neighborhood. People that grew up around the Cantus “knew that the whole family
was a bunch of troublemakers and… tried to stay away from the Cantu family.” 518 The
Cantus “had the neighborhood terrorized.” 519
Even before the night of the murder, Eusebio (the owner of the house being built
at 605 Briggs) had complained to a neighbor about the Cantus breaking into his house.520
He complained that he was not able to finish the construction on the home because the
Cantus would take all the materials. 521 But because everyone in the neighborhood “was
scared to death” of them, no one would turn them in. 522
The workers building the house would see the young men shooting guns and that
the young men “would walk up and down the street acting real big.” 523 One of these
laborers, Rigoverto Rosas, who worked for Eusebio Moreno on the Briggs Street house,
recalled what the neighborhood was like at the time:
During the construction of the house I was not sure why
Eusebio was building the house on this Briggs Street
because it seemed like a dangerous area. When I was
framing the house I could see three young guys that lived
across the street but a couple of houses down that would
hang out outside and shoot a rifle. I saw the rifle and it
looked and sounded like a .22 automatic rifle. At times we
would be working on the roof and hear the rifle shots. We
would climb down right away because we didn’t know if
they were shooting in our direction. I have used a .22 rifle
517

Interview with Juan Moreno, February 8, 2007.
Sworn Statement of Samuel A. Lopez, August 1, 2006.
519
Id.
520
Sworn Statement of Sandra Lopez, August 2, 2006.
521
Id.
522
Id.
523
Sworn Statement of Mary L. Luna, August 8, 2006.
518

95 of 113

before when hunting rabbits and know how they look and
sound. We would later see the three young guys walking
pass the house. The three young guys would stare at us in a
taunting way, but we never told them anything. The three
young guys were about 14 to 17 years old. I had never met
these three young guys and didn’t know their names. I
would just ignore and avoid them by getting back to work.
I didn’t hear about the shooting on Briggs Street until the
following day from a co-worker. When I first heard the
suspects had robbed Pedro and Juan, I immediately thought
that the young guys from across the street had done it.
Since Eusebio had not yet moved into the house there
wasn’t much that they could steal. I always thought that
the people that had shot Pedro and Juan knew they were in
there and had intended to steal from them. They probably
thought that Pedro and Juan had money. Several days after
the shooting I went to the house on Briggs Street to help
clean up the blood and fix the bullet holes. 524
It was because of this, that those that knew Eusebio was building a house on Briggs
Street were concerned. Even Juan Moreno had said that the people living around the
house “were no good.” 525 Likewise, Pedro Gomez’s widow recalls her husband telling
her how materials were being stolen from the house while it was being built. 526
Even one of Cantu’s teachers provided information about rumors he heard at
South San High School concerning Cantu’s involvement in the murder. When he did
this, he told the police officer that he feared retaliation for providing the information. 527
According to Eugene Reyes, who at one time lived with Robert Cantu (Ruben’s
brother) everyone in the neighborhood knew the Cantu brothers “were bad and you
stayed away from them.” 528

Ruben Cantu actively intimidated the people in the

neighborhood. Sometime before Cantu was arrested for the murder, Eugene was riding
524

Sworn Statement of Rigoverto S. Rosas, August 8, 2006.
Sworn Statement of Mary L. Luna, August 8, 2006.
526
Richard Reyna Interview Notes.
527
Assignment Report of D. Thompson, December 1, 1984.
528
Sworn Statement of Eugene Reyes, August 21, 2006.
525

96 of 113

his bike and cutting through the trailer park where the Cantus lived when he heard three
whistles. As he turned around, he saw Ruben Cantu and David Garza standing behind
Cantu’s house “holding a 22 rifle and a pistol with a long barrel.”529 “Ruben said, ‘Oh its
(sic) you, if you hadn’t turned around and come back we would have shot you.’” 530
Given this level of fear and intimidation, there can be no doubt that Moreno’s statements
of fear at the time were legitimate.
There is no doubt that Ruben Cantu and his brothers were dangerous. Ruben was
a member of the Grey Eagles and later a Mexican Mafia member as is David Garza.
Whatever doubts some might profess to his guilt in Gomez’s murder and Moreno’s
shooting, no one claims that it was anyone other than Ruben Cantu who brazenly shot De
La Luz in a bar filled with witnesses. Ruben’s brother, Larry Cantu, who was in prison at
the time of the Briggs Street shooting for an unrelated murder and was a member of the
Mexican Mafia, was released before Cantu’s trial. 531 Robert Cantu had already had two
assault convictions. And by Robert’s own admission, he was a professional criminal and
a member of the Mexican Mafia. 532
THE INTIMIDATION OF OTHER WITNESSES
Another factor that supports Moreno’s claims of his fear of retaliation at the time
is the fear that other potential witnesses expressed and acted on. Ramiro Reyes, who was
a childhood friend of Cantu’s and was initially going to testify at trial, told the police that
Cantu “was wild and dangerous” and he was afraid that he would be killed for giving a

529

Id.
Id.
531
Sworn Statement of Larry Cantu, August 24, 2006.
532
Sworn Statement of Robert Cantu, August 24 & 29, 2006.
530

97 of 113

statement to the police. 533 Later, his brother Eugene told him that Robert Cantu had
threatened to kill Reyes if he testified against Ruben. 534

Robert was even in the

courtroom when Reyes testified at the pretrial suppression hearing. 535
As Reyes recalls:
I have been threatened about three (3) or four (4) times by
Ruben’s family and friends since the murder. Right before
I was to testify Robert Cantu who is Ruben’s brother told
my brother Eugene who was living with Robert that if I
testified against Ruben he would kill me.
I left for California after Ruben’s trial and stayed there
about four (4) years. I returned from California and was at
my sister’s house attending a party and saw Ruben’s other
brother Larry in a vacant lot next to my sister’s house.
Larry kept yelling at me in Spanish to come to where he
was standing that I was going to get it, that I was marked
and that he was going to kill me. We went in the house and
soon after that Larry drove off. We heard him drive back
by the house within a few minutes and slammed on his
brakes.
One other time I was at my job and a friend of the Cantu’s
(sic) family whose name was Blackie showed up and
continued to stare at me. I got a little concerned and told
my wife we needed to go to Corpus Christi, TX for a while.
We moved to Corpus Christi and stayed there for about
four (4) or five (5) years and then returned to San Antonio.
I recall some other times that I was threatened by either
Ruben’s brothers or friends, but it has been so long that I
do not remember the details.
I remember that my sister’s house was shot at on one
occasion and the window was broken out of her car, but I
do not recall being shot at.
I was afraid to testify 536 against Ruben because of the
above reasons. I knew I could or would be hurt. I knew
533

Supplementary Report of Det. J. Herring, December 14, 1984.
Statement of Ramiro Reyes, July 10, 1985 (attached as appendix N).
535
Id.
536
Reyes is referencing trial testimony, as he did testify at a pretrial hearing in Cantu’s case.
534

98 of 113

that Larry Cantu was a Mexican Mafia member. I did not
know if Ruben, Robert or David Garza were a member or
not. I am not a member of any gang nor have I ever been.
Right before Ruben’s trial Ruben’s father Fred Cantu called
me and asked me if I would meet him at Market Square in
downtown San Antonio. I met him there and we walked
over to the building where the city council meets. We met
with a… man whose name I do not remember.
The… man asked me what my testimony was and I told
him. I do not remember what the… man said afterwards,
but Fred Cantu told me that if I would change my story he
would give me money. I do not remember how much.
The… man was there when Mr. Cantu offered me the
money. I was pretty scared of what was going on and
wanted to leave so I told Mr. Cantu OK that I would
change my testimony. Mr. Cantu then said when I changed
my testimony he would give me the money. I did not
change my testimony or my statement. 537
Nor do we have to rely on Ramiro Reyes’ recollection to support the assertion that
he was fearful of the Cantus. On April 15, 1985, at the request of the District Attorney’s
Office, Reyes and his mother went to the District Attorney’s Office and told District
Attorney Investigator, Ken Thuleen, that they did not “want to give a written statement
because of fear for his [Ramiro’s] life.” 538 They explained that Cantu had been involved
in a shooting in 1980 and “was still on the street”.539 Nevertheless, the investigator
continued to interview Reyes and Reyes detailed Cantu’s admissions about the
shooting. 540 He also informed him that Cantu and his brother, Robert, owned .22 caliber

537

Sworn Statement of Ramiro Reyes, December 9, 2005.
Memo of K. E. Thuleen, April 15, 1985.
539
Id.
540
Id.
538

99 of 113

rifles, the same type used in the commission of the crime. 541

In this interview,

Investigator Thuleen noted that Reyes was a reluctant witness. 542
Investigator Thuleen’s assessment was accurate. The next day, on April 16, 1985,
Reyes of his own volition appeared at the District Attorney’s Office attempting to recant
by telling Investigator Thuleen that he had lied to him and the police when he said that
Cantu was involved in the shooting. 543 Investigator Thuleen was skeptical about the
recantation and asked Reyes to take a polygraph. 544 Reyes agreed and the test revealed
that Ramiro was not present at the time of the shooting as he had consistently
maintained. 545 But it also revealed that Reyes was being deceptive when he said that he
did not know who was responsible for the shooting. 546 It was clear to the investigator, as
documented in his memo at the time, that Ramiro was “very afraid of the Cantus.” 547 He
also noted that he was also feeling a lot of pressure from his own family to stay out of it
and not get involved. 548

Reyes’s brother corroborated the investigator’s opinion of

Reyes’s reluctance to be a witness. 549
Despite this fear, Reyes did testify at a preliminary hearing on July 8, 1985, in
Cantu’s trial after being called by the defense. During his testimony, Reyes specifically
testified that he was afraid of Cantu. 550 And that his brother, Eugene, told him that
Cantu’s brother, Robert, would kill him if he testifies for the State. 551

541

Id.
Id.
543
Memo of K. E. Thuleen, April 17, 1985.
544
Id.
545
Id.
546
Id.
547
Id.
548
Id.
549
Sworn Statement of Eugene Reyes, August 21, 2006.
550
Ct. R. vol. I of X, at 159.
551
Id. at 174-75.
542

100 of 113

According to Reyes, he had known Cantu for 15 years and they were friends. 552
Reyes testified that he was not present at the location or time the Briggs shooting took
place. 553 He testified that he did not participate in the crime and was not with Cantu or
Garza that day or night. 554
When asked about the Briggs Street shooting by the police, Reyes relayed to them
what Cantu had told him, that Cantu had done it. 555 Cantu admitted his involvement to
Reyes the second day after the shooting. 556 When questioned by the trial judge, who
interjected a question, Reyes testified that no officer told him that Cantu shot anyone. 557
Ultimately, Ramiro Reyes did not testify at Cantu’s trial. The lead prosecutor,
Bruce Baxter, received a call from Reyes who informed him that he had been threatened
and did not want to testify. The day before the trial began, Sunday, July 21, 1985, a
passenger in a vehicle owned by Robert Cantu, fired three shots at Ramiro as he was
going home. 558 Reyes told the investigating officer that he had received death threats
from Robert Cantu. 559 Although Reyes never said he would not testify, this impressed
upon Baxter “that he was scared to death.” 560 In fact, Reyes specifically told him, “Mr.
Baxter, you don’t live where I do, people can find me.”

561

Because Baxter feared for

Reyes safety and did not want Ramiro’s blood on his hands, he made the strategic
decision not to have him testify at Cantu’s trial. 562

552

Id. at 162.
Id. at 164.
554
Id. at 172-73.
555
Id. at 165.
556
Id. at 166.
557
Id. at 169.
558
Police Offense Report, July 21, 1985 (attached as appendix O).
559
Id.
560
Sworn Statement of Bruce F. Baxter, August 18, 2006 (attached as appendix M).
561
Id.
562
Id.
553

101 of 113

Nor was Reyes the only one subjected to the threats and intimidation. The Cantus
went after Reyes’ family as well.

After Cantu was arrested for Gomez’s murder,

Ramiro’s brother, Eugene Reyes, was threatened by Ruben’s father, Fidencio Cantu.
After Ruben was charged with the murder on Briggs my
problems with the Cantus started. I know that the Cantus
are angry because my brother Ramiro, gave a statement to
the police. In the summer of 1985, I was riding my bicycle
on Briggs Street, when Fidencio Cantu called me over.
Fidencio asked me to give a statement saying my brother,
Ramiro, had lied when he told the police Ruben Cantu had
admitted the murder to him. He offered me fifteen dollars
and told me that if I didn’t give him a written statement he
wouldn’t be responsible for what his sons, Larry and
Robert, did to me. I took this as a threat. Fidencio showed
me a statement that was already written out and I signed it.
At the time I didn’t read very well, I don’t recall whether I
read it or if he read it to me. He also recorded our
conversation. I signed that statement even though it wasn’t
the truth because I felt I had no choice. I was and still am
scared of the Cantu brothers. I took the fifteen dollars, at
the time that was a lot of money to me. He told me not to
tell anyone I had signed this statement and I didn’t. 563
Ramiro and Eugene were not alone, even Cantu’s codefendant David Garza
feared reprisal from Ruben. There were allegations of threats made by Cantu against
Garza while the two were in custody in the Bexar County Jail awaiting trial.564 The jury
was made aware of these threats during the punishment phase of Cantu’s trial. 565
The intimidation and threats continued even after Ruben Cantu’s conviction. In
his statement, Ramiro Reyes’ brother, Eugene, discusses three separate run-ins with the
Cantu brothers. The first incident occurred shortly after the trial. Robert Cantu, using a
pistol, threatened Eugene and his family. 566 Robert Cantu wanted to know where Ramiro

563

Sworn Statement of Eugene Reyes, August 21, 2006.
Ct. R. vol. X of X, at 2971.
565
Id.
566
Sworn Statement of Eugene Reyes, August 21, 2006.
564

102 of 113

was. 567 A couple of months after this incident, Robert pulled into a driveway, got out of
his car with a knife, and “threatened to kill” Eugene if he did not tell him where Ramiro
was. 568 The most recent of the three incidents occurred in 1993. While Eugene was in
the Bexar County Jail, he ran into Robert Cantu who, Eugene believes, had other
members of the Mexican Mafia beat him up. 569
The fear Eugene expressed of the Cantus has not disappeared over time. To this
day he remains scared. He was reluctant to speak and expressed his belief that if he gave
a statement and his name appeared in the newspaper, he would be killed. 570
As for Ramiro, he spent time away from San Antonio living in California and
Corpus Christi, Texas because he feared retaliation. 571
Similarly, Sandra Lopez, who lived in the neighborhood and was helping run the
bar the night Officer De La Luz was shot, recalled an incident that occurred after Cantu
was convicted.
After Ruben Cantu had been sentenced for murder, I ran
across his older brother at the Sunglo Station located (sic)
Military and Bynum. I went to pay and when I returned he
was leaning on my car on the driver’s side. I pumped only
a little bit of gas, because I was afraid and my daughter was
still in the car. As I was getting in my car he said, “you
helped that motherfucker DeLaLuz”. I drove off enroute to
my mother’s house where I was living at the time and as
soon as I entered the house, someone shot into our
house. 572
567

Id.
Id.
569
Id.
570
Investigator Memo to File, Interview with Eugene Reyes, August 2, 2006.
571
Sworn Statement of Ramiro Reyes, December 9, 2005.
572
Statement of Sandra Lopez, August 2, 2006. Sandra’s brother, Samuel Lopez, corroborates this
incident. There were also rumors that the Cantus caused the death of an individual whom they believed had
cooperated with the police in this case. According to Sandra’s brother Samuel:
568

I heard that the Cantu’s (sic) thought that Mario [the alleged getaway
driver involved in the DeLaLuz shooting, Sandra and me (sic) had

103 of 113

Given the degree of fear and intimidation that continues to this day, it is certainly
no surprise that Juan Moreno feared for his safety in those first months after the shooting
while Ruben Cantu and Robert Cantu, aided by their father, were freely roaming the
streets. Even to this day, many of witnesses interviewed as part of this investigation
expressed their continuing fear of the Cantu family. Ruben Cantu and his brothers, as
well as David Garza, are confirmed members of the Mexican Mafia.

In addition,

Fidencio Cantu, Ruben’s father, has a criminal history, including a conviction for
indecency with a child that occurred while he was in his seventies. 573
C. THE CODEFENDANT―DAVID GARZA
The final person suggesting Cantu’s innocence is his codefendant, David Garza.
Despite Moreno’s positive identification of David Garza in 1985, and Garza’s guilty plea
to robbery, Garza has publicly maintained his innocence for nearly two decades before
finally acknowledging his guilt after his meetings with Richard Reyna.

Obviously

impacting Garza’s credibility is his criminal history. Even after his conviction for his
involvement in the robbery that resulted in Pedro Gomez’s death, he also has convictions
for theft, two weapons possession convictions while he was in prison, and most recently a
conviction for burglary of a habitation. 574 His criminal history, however, is not the only
thing that affects his credibility.

betrayed them, because we cooperated with the police. …I also know
Mario Ochoa was an experienced heroin addict and he died of an
overdose in 1986. The word in the neighborhood was that the Cantu’s
(sic) gave him a hot load.
(Sworn Statement of Samuel Lopez, August 1, 2006). The truth of the rumor is not the critical factor.
Rather, it is the fact that the fear this family generated led to such a rumor.
573
Criminal History of Fidencio Cantu.
574
Criminal History of David Garza.

104 of 113

During his very first meeting with the police in November of 1984, regarding
Moreno’s shooting and Gomez’s murder, Garza denied involvement. 575 Like Cantu, he
told the detectives that he did not have any knowledge of the incident and had nothing to
do with the shootings. 576
On March 4, 1985, the police went to Garza’s home and left a message that they
wanted to talk to him. 577 The next day, Garza came by himself to the homicide office.578
During this meeting, he again initially denied his involvement. 579 In response to this,
Detective Quintanilla told Garza that he knew he was there and asked again if he wanted
to give a statement. 580 Garza thought for a while, and then admitted that he had been at
the house where the shooting took place, but claimed that he waited outside. 581 Garza
told the detective that he heard the shots being fired and then saw Ruben come running
out of the house. 582 Garza refused to provide a written statement. 583
Within four months of the murder, Garza has already given two versions of what
he knew about the Briggs Street shooting. Importantly, in both versions he minimizes his
culpability. It is only after he is told that the police know he was there, that he finally
admits to being at the scene. And although he now denies it, he told the police that he
saw Ruben running from the house.

575

Supplementary Report of Det. J. Herring, December 14, 1984.
Id. Sworn Statement of James Herring, January 31, 2006; Sworn Statement of Joe Cloud, February 1,
2006.
577
Supplementary Report of Det. E. Quintanilla, March 5, 1985 (attached as appendix I); Sworn Statement
of Edward Quintanilla, January 31, 2006.
578
Supplementary Report of Det. E. Quintanilla, March 5, 1985 (attached as appendix I).
579
Id.; see also Sworn Statement of Edward Quintanilla, January 31, 2006.
580
Supplementary Report of Det. E. Quintanilla, March 5, 1985 (attached as appendix I).
581
Id.; see also Sworn Statement of Edward Quintanilla, January 31, 2006.
582
Id.
583
Supplementary Report of Det. E. Quintanilla, March 5, 1985 (attached as appendix I).
576

105 of 113

Perhaps most troubling about Garza’s admissions is the inconsistency with which
he alternates between taking responsibility and claiming he was innocent. After Garza
had been arrested and was in custody at the juvenile detention center, he confessed his
involvement in the crime to his sister during one of her many visits. She recalled the
conversation: “During one visit David told me that they had gone into the house on
Briggs Street to rob, but not to shoot anybody.” 584 Although he never specifically
mentioned Cantu’s name to his sister, she was under the belief that the other person that
Garza was referring to was Ruben Cantu. 585 By this point, she had heard that it was
Cantu. 586 He then entered into a plea agreement with the State in which he pled guilty, as
opposed to no contest, and agreed to a twenty-year prison sentence.
Contrast that admission with his prison admission interview. In this interview,
Garza would not provide any information regarding the offense to the prison officials.
Since he had already admitted his guilt in court and admitted his involvement to his
sister, there was no reason for him to continue to deny his involvement in the crime.
There is also the post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus that Garza
personally prepared and filed. 587 In this pleading, which Garza swore was true and
correct, he contends his trial lawyer was ineffective for not fully investigating the case
and challenging the State’s evidence.588 In making his case, Garza asserts that Cantu had
stated that Garza “was never present during these alleged incidents and charges.” 589 This
sworn petition essentially claims that Garza was innocent and that the guilty party, Ruben

584

Sworn Statement of Nora Garza Alejandro, August 22, 2006.
Id.
586
Id.
587
David Garza’s Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus, January 31, 1989.
588
Id.
589
Id.
585

106 of 113

Cantu, could exonerate him.

As this pleading makes clear, Garza has no problem

implicating his friend Cantu whenever it suited his needs.
In a letter David Garza sent to Nancy Barohn, the lawyer who represented Cantu
during the final stages of his appeal, thirty-one days before Ruben Cantu was executed,
Garza asserts that both he and Cantu are innocent of the crime. 590 However, today Garza
admits he did participate in the murder and robbery of Pedro Gomez but claims now that
Cantu was not with him. And yet, in the days before his friend is to be put to death, well
after Garza himself had admitted guilt to his sister and been convicted for the crime, he
does not provide Cantu’s lawyer with substantive information that she can use to prevent
the execution. Instead of telling Barohn that he did it and that Cantu did not, thus
establishing validity to his claim, Garza merely asserts general innocence and allows his
best friend, to whom he was “like bread and butter,”591 to be executed.
When first approached by the investigator for the NAACP LDF in March of 2004,
Garza again claimed to have no knowledge of the crime. 592 Reyna met with Garza, who
was in prison the entire time, on fourteen separate occasions between March of 2004 and
October of 2005. 593

It was not until 2005, that Garza finally told his sister, Nora

Alejandro, that Ruben Cantu was not involved. So even though Garza admitted his own
involvement to her in the months after the murder and his sister believed the entire time
that Cantu was involved, for the last twenty years Garza has never once corrected her.
Even without all of Garza’s past inconsistencies, there are significant problems
with his current version of the incident that render these claims unbelievable. Some are

590

David Garza’s Letter to Nancy Barohn, July 28, 1993.
Lise Olsen, Cantu Case: Death and Doubt, HOUSTON CHRONICLE, Nov. 21, 2005.
592
Richard Reyna Report, March 9, 2004; Richard Reyna Notes on Inmate Visits.
593
Richard Reyna Notes on Inmate Visits
591

107 of 113

relatively minor inconsistencies. Garza now says he never went to the police by himself
after his first visit to the station, but his own sister, Nora Alejandro, distinctly recalls that
in the late winter of 1985, Garza went by himself with a police investigator. 594 Thus, on
at least eight occasions, Garza has alternated between admitting and denying his guilt,
depending on which best suited his needs at the time.
Unlike this inconsistency, there are other problems with Garza’s current
statements that considerably undermine his credibility. Garza claims that on November
8, 1984, he went to Ruben’s house and was told by Cantu’s father, Fidencio, that Ruben
was out of town. 595

Fidencio not only casts doubt on the claim that Ruben was out of

town that night, he completely contradicts Garza’s version. Fidencio was in Corpus
Christi the night of the murder. 596 The incident could not have happened as Garza now
contends.
Another oddity of Garza’s current story is the fact that he remained silent even as
Cantu was tried for the capital murder of Pedro Gomez. Fred Rodriguez was the lawyer
appointed to represent David Garza for the capital murder of Pedro Gomez and the
attempted capital murder of Juan Moreno. 597 At no point during this representation, did
Garza ever tell Rodriguez that Cantu was not involved. According to Rodriguez, “During
the entire time that I represented Mr. Garza (Certification & Transfer Hearing, Examining
Trial & Plea of Guilty) he never told me that Ruben Cantu was innocent of the capital
murder charge or that Ruben Cantu was not with him (Garza) the night they committed

594

Sworn Statement of Nora Garza Alejandro, August 22, 2006; see also Supplementary Report of Det. E.
Quintanilla, March 5, 1985 (attached as appendix I).
595
Affidavit of David Garza, April 15, 2004; Affidavit of David Garza, May 31, 2005.
596
Sworn Statement of Fidencio Cantu, August 23-24, 2006.
597
Sworn Statement of Fred Rodriguez, July 26, 2006.

108 of 113

the capital murder of Pedro Gomez and attempted capital murder of Juan Moreno.” 598
Had this information been provided to Rodriguez, he “would have certainly made the
attorneys representing Mr. Cantu (Carruthers & Garcia) aware of this information as well
as the prosecutors (Baxter & Harris) and Judge Barrera.” 599
Prior to Cantu’s trial, there were discussions between the lead prosecutor and
Garza’s defense lawyer about the possibility of Garza testifying against Cantu. Although
he did not believe Garza’s testimony was desperately needed, the prosecutor felt that
Garza could corroborate Moreno. 600 Ultimately, Garza was not willing to testify. 601 The
reason given was not that Cantu was innocent; but rather, the reason was Garza’s fear of
Cantu. 602 The lead prosecutor explained what happened:
As we were calling back and forth during this time period,
Mr. Rodriguez gave me reason to think that David Garza
might be available. However, Mr. Rodriguez called me not
long before jury selection was to start, and said that Garza
wasn’t willing to testify. David had told his lawyer that
Cantu was a trustee at the Bexar County Jail and was
serving him his food. With Ruben looking across the
counter serving him his food everyday, Garza realized that
Cantu could ‘get to him’ at any time. 603
While Rodriguez does not recall the specific plea negotiations, he did confirm that it
would have been his practice to offer to have his client testify against Cantu. 604
David Garza now claims that he did not have adequate representation. Rodriguez
counters this saying, “I also would like to add that during the entire time I represented
Mr. Garza I would always explain all documents and procedures to him and make sure he
598

Id.
Id.
600
Sworn Statement of Bruce F. Baxter, August 18, 2006 (attached as appendix M).
601
Id.
602
Id.
603
Id.
604
Sworn Statement of Fred Rodriguez, July 26, 2006.
599

109 of 113

understood everything that was occurring. I took particular care in doing this because of
Mr. Garza’s age and his limited experience with the legal system.” 605 Considering the
life sentence Garza faced and the comparatively light sentence of twenty years on a
reduced charge of robbery that he actually received for participating in the capital murder
of Gomez, Garza’s claims of deficient representation seem hollow.
While in prison, David Garza has received money from Richard Reyna, the
investigator working for the NAACP LDF who was conducting the investigation into
Cantu’s alleged innocence. While the amounts are relatively small, for an inmate without
access to any income, even a small amount of money is considerable. The money was
placed into Garza’s prison commissary account. 606

Coincidently, Fidencio Cantu,

Ruben’s father, made two deposits into Garza’s account. 607 This account is used to
purchase the only, comparatively speaking, luxury items available to prison inmates. It is
also impossible to know if these are the only amounts Garza has received as a result of
his cooperation with the NAACP LDF investigation.
During one conversation with Richard Reyna while Garza was housed in the
Bexar County Jail, Garza casually demanded money. 608 Concerned that he may not get
the money at the jail, Garza tells Reyna to send it to his sister and provides her address
and phone number. 609

605

Id.
Although Reyna’s expense reports do not reflect all of the payments, the prison commissary records
establish that from March 2004 until May of 2005, Reyna deposited $250 into Garza’s account. In 2004,
he deposited $25 in March, $25 in April, $35 in May, and $40 in September. The next year, he deposited
$25 in April, $25 in May, and $75 in October. In addition, he also purchased $64.62 of flowers for Garza,
and delivered them to Garza’s mother and children and spent $21.80 to provide Garza with writing
materials.
607
$10 was deposited in May of 2004, and $20 was deposited in December of 2005.
608
Telephone Conversation between David Garza and Richard Reyna, May 3, 2006 (attached as appendix
P).
609
Id.
606

110 of 113

Even more disturbing than the direct requests for money from Reyna, is what
Garza told his sister about why he is receiving assistance from Reyna and the NAACP
LDF. During a conversation with her, he told her that he is expecting as much as $1,000
from the organization.610 When she naturally inquires as to why they would give him
money, he casually responded, “Without me, they wouldn’t have nothing.” 611 Garza’s
statement illustrates his belief as to why the NAACP LFD has been helping him
financially and what he has to do to keep the money coming.
Garza’s current admissions of culpability and exoneration of Cantu seem to serve
two purposes. First, his cooperation with the NAACP LDF investigation creates direct
financial benefits. Second, he is able to punish Ramiro Reyes for his initial cooperation
with the police and the prosecution of both Cantu and Garza. We cannot, however, know
what is actually motivating Garza to finally admit his guilt. Whatever the reason, there is
no evidence to support his claim that Reyes was the other person involved. Reyes agreed
to take a polygraph and that examination revealed that he was being truthful when he said
that he was not present when Moreno and Gomez were shot. 612 Neither Garza nor Cantu
ever took a polygraph exam.
Garza would have people believe that he remained silent while his best friend was
put to death for a crime he did not commit while the person who cooperated with the
police and implicated Cantu remained free. This contradiction does not in any way make
sense. Perhaps Garza’s sister, who certainly knows him better than anyone involved in
the investigation of the capital murder, explained this contradiction best when talking to

610

Telephone Conversation between David Garza and Nora Garza Alejandro, May 12, 2006 (attached as
appendix Q).
611
Id.
612
Memo of K. E. Thuleen, April 17, 1985.

111 of 113

Richard Reyna about the claims of Cantu’s innocence, when she wondered “how could
he be innocent” when after all this time, “we had not heard anything different from
David.” 613

VI. CONCLUSION
It is the considered opinion of this investigation that no credible information has
been discovered, from any source, that supports the claim that Ruben Cantu was innocent
of the capital murder of Pedro Gomez and, therefore, wrongly executed. While there are
individuals who are now willing to come forward and assert his innocence, given their
criminal histories, payments they have received for their cooperation, and the
implausibility of their stories, they cannot be believed.
Instead, the evidence reveals that Cantu personally confessed to the capital
murder. He detailed his involvement to both Ramiro Reyes and Thomas Cooremans. He
was prepared to admit his guilt in court, but the trial judge rejected the plea agreement.
He even implicated himself during his admission interview with prison officials.
It appears beyond all reasonable probability that Juan Moreno is relying entirely
on Richard Reyna as the basis for his newly found doubts and for changing his testimony
and long held belief that Ruben Cantu was his assailant. Nothing Moreno now says about
the night of the shooting and his identification of Cantu can be acted on. Moreno’s 180º
turn since the beginning of the NAACP LDF’s investigation, when he initially asserted
that Cantu was guilty and Reyes was not involved, cannot be validated by external
evidence. Moreno’s current statements are so tainted by Reyna’s methods that they are

613

Sworn Statement of Nora Garza Alejandro, August 22, 2006.

112 of 113

unreliable on their face. Moreover, there are aspects of what Moreno now claims that are
easily debunked.
When Moreno’s new version is compared to what he has previously said to the
police, to the lawyers, in court, and even to Richard Reyna, it does not make sense.
Combined with Cantu’s own admissions of guilt, it is impossible to conclude that there is
anything credible about what Moreno now says. He is simply not believable. In the end,
this investigation has not uncovered concrete information that warrants a conclusion that
Juan Moreno was lying in his identification, pressured or not, or that Ruben Cantu was
wrongly convicted.

113 of 113