New details could undermine witness in Chandra Levy case

mdoyle@mcclatchydc.comDecember 18, 2012 

Chandra Levy

Ingmar Guandique, 27, center, who is accused of killing Chandra Levy, is escorted from the Violent Crimes Unit by detectives Tom Williams, left, and Emilio Martinez in Washington, on Wednesday, April 22, 2009. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)


— Newly obtained information potentially undermines a prosecution witness used to convict an illegal Salvadoran immigrant of killing Modesto native Chandra Levy, an unusual court hearing revealed Tuesday.

Citing "information that has come to the government's attention," D.C. Superior Court Judge Gerald I. Fisher huddled with prosecutors and defense attorneys for nearly two hours Tuesday before scheduling a follow-up hearing next month.

At the prosecutors' request, Fisher kept nearly all of the Tuesday discussion itself — including the exact reasons for keeping the information secret — sealed at a private bench conference.

"The possible disclosure of that information may create safety issues," he said.

The hearing before a largely empty, third-floor courtroom occurred more than two years after a jury convicted Ingmar Guandique of Levy's murder.

During 10 days of trial testimony, prosecutors convinced jurors that Guandique killed Levy in Washington's Rock Creek Park on May 1, 2001. At the time, the 24-year-old Levy had finished graduate studies and a federal Bureau of Prisons internship and was preparing to return to her family's home in Modesto.

Levy's 2001 disappearance became national tabloid fodder when media and law enforcement investigators determined that she had been having an affair with then-Rep. Gary Condit of Ceres. In a riveting moment, Condit testified at Guandique's trial; he denied having anything to do with Levy's death and he refused to answer questions about their relationship. In the trial's turning point, jurors later said, former Fresno Bulldogs gang member Armando Morales testified that Guandique had confessed to him while they were prison cellmates.

Neither documents nor public statements available Tuesday clarified the nature of the new information nor the identity of the prosecution witness whose credibility potentially could be undercut. As a general rule, so-called impeachment evidence can be used to contradict a story told by the witness or to demonstrate that the witness is biased.

Defense attorney James Klein declined to talk about the latest legal twist in what has been a tumultuous case. Prosecutors essentially confined their public comments to a plea that the judge keep secret the discussion over why the new evidence should stay secret.

Fisher lost a previous fight over secrecy, when the D.C. Court of Appeals overruled his decision to keep juror questionnaires secret.

The post-trial hearing Tuesday was the latest to be held since a jury convicted Guandique in November 2010.

After the trial, defense attorney Santha Sonenberg complained of juror misbehavior as well about statements made by Assistant U.S. Attorney Amanda Haines during the prosecutor's closing argument. Citing newspaper accounts, Sonenberg said some jurors violated the judge's admonitions by sharing notes with a fellow juror. Sonenberg asserted that Haines went too far in seeking the jury's sympathy when the prosecutor conjured up what Levy's final moments might have been like.

On Nov. 30, at the request of Guandique's publicly funded appellate attorneys, the D.C. Court of Appeals extended until Feb. 26 the deadline for Guandique's initial appeals brief. The extension was the fifth time that the defense attorneys have sought more time.

Bee Washington Bureau reporter Michael Doyle can be reached at or (202) 383-0006.

Modesto Bee is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service