New features are coming soon. Login with Facebook to get an early start and help us test them out!
For more information about the Interactive Animal Cruelty Maps, see the map notes.
Tuesday, Oct 31, 2006County: Garfield
Disposition: Not Charged
Person of Interest: Frank Alameno
Case Updates: 1 update(s) available
Frank Alameno, 58, was arrested on March 16 and accused of six more crimes in addition to about 20 child pornography charges and four drug charges.
Alameno, from south of New Castle near County Road 311, was taken into custody at the courthouse March 16 night following a resumption of a preliminary hearing. He posted a $50,000 bond shortly after.
His attorney, Lawson Wills, said during the hearing that Alameno could face life in prison if he's convicted of the charges against him.
The new charges filed under a separate case include: two counts of sexual assault on a child less than 15 by a person in a position of trust; two counts of sexual assault on a child with a pattern of abuse; and two counts of unlawful sexual conduct. The first four charges are felonies. The last two are misdemeanors.
In the arrest affidavit for those charges, girls aged 10 and 13 said they were touched inappropriately while riding ATVs at Alameno's property in summer of 2006. Among other claims, they said the inappropriate touching includes Alameno massaging them, then touching their breasts, saying, "Oops, I slipped." He was also said to have photographed them while they built a fort, and posed with them in photos, touching places "that would have been covered by a swim suit."
Wills had motioned for dismissal of the case and battled with District Attorney Martin Beeson over an alleged improper disclosure of investigative materials. Judge Denise Lynch found no violation by the DA's office and did not dismiss the case.
In court documents, Wills raised the issue of whether or not some investigative materials were somehow improperly held back from the defense. Wills argued that a witness - the mother of an alleged victim - committed perjury by giving testimony that was in direct contrast to information in Garfield County Sheriff's Detective Don Breier's report initiated on Nov. 14. Wills wrote that Beeson and Breier "suborned" the perjury by not stopping the woman's testimony when, according to Wills, they knew it to be false.
"It is clear that (the alleged victim's mother) committed perjury through this Dec. 1, 2006, testimony," Wills wrote in a motion to dismiss. "What is especially disturbing about this is that both prosecutor Beeson and advisory witness Don Breier sat quietly at the prosecutor's table during this testimony. ... The perjury was not disclosed until defense council stumbled upon the information in a late disclosure of investigative reports."
Beeson at one point wrote in a response that Wills "utterly failed to cite any factual support" for the "baseless and hypocritical" allegations. The motion and response presented lengthy arguments about the fine points of several cases cited as precedents. Beeson had also issued a subpoena for Wills, but Wills was granted a motion to quash it.
"This is pure and unadulterated sleaze," Beeson wrote of Wills' arguments. Beeson recommended that Lynch conduct a special investigation into the matter, suggesting Wills wouldn't want such an investigation because the allegations are lies.
Judge Denise Lynch found that there was no violation by the DA's office, saying it disclosed the report the day after it received it, and that there is no pressure to generate or complete investigative reports before such a hearing.
Wills had argued in court documents that the DA's office should be aware of the flow of information and investigative reports into its office, and if not that, he argued, Detective Breier should have been aware of what his report would contain while he was listening to the alleged perjury during testimony. Wills said Lynch had "let prosecutors off the hook" and that he may appeal the decision. He called Breier's testimony about the creation and disclosure of the report "preposterous."
Alameno was first arrested on and held on $100,000 bond after family members reported that he possessed child pornography, suspected methamphetamine and cocaine. Law enforcement said they found "hundreds if not thousands" of images including child pornography and bestiality. They said Internet chats describe Alameno giving pharmaceuticals to children and a woman while they slept. Wills had argued that the chats were merely fantasy, with only the mother's speculation to support accusations of actual crimes related to them.
|The Colorado Supreme Court made a decision favorable to the prosecution Monday in Frank Alameno's 2006 child pornography case.|
Alameno lives south of New Castle. Between two separate cases he has been charged with 43 felonies including possession of child pornography, sexual assault on a child and drug possession charges plus two misdemeanor counts of cruelty to animals and obscenity.
Ninth Judicial District Attorney Martin Beeson appealed District Judge Denise Lynch's order in March that threw out evidence relating to pornography allegedly found in Alameno's garage and crawl space and 2.1 grams of methamphetamines allegedly found in his bathroom medicine cabinet.
Defense attorney Lawson Wills had sought to suppress any evidence obtained from Alameno's home through two September 2006 search warrants, arguing that investigators lacked sufficient probable cause. Beeson argued that there was probable cause to search the home for child pornography, which could have been stored on a small flash drive in Alameno's medicine cabinet. He said law enforcement isn't required to ignore evidence found in plain sight during the course of a search for other items.
Lynch's order said it was a stretch of the imagination to think someone would store something like a flash drive in a medicine cabinet.
The Supreme Court decided to reverse part of the order, concluding in a 15-page opinion that the "plain view" exception to search warrant requirements allows the evidence in court.
Court proceedings can continue after being held up since April for the appeal. A motions hearing is scheduled Feb. 6, and a 15-day jury trial is scheduled in April in which both cases will be tried together.
Alameno was arrested Sept. 13, 2006, in Rifle after family members reported that they thought he may have child pornography and drugs. They told police they planned an intervention but decided it was "too big for them" and wanted help.
Investigators said they found numerous images including child pornography and bestiality in Alameno's home and on a computer hidden in a wood pile behind his house. They said Internet chats describe Alameno giving pharmaceuticals to children and broadcasting inappropriate photos of them on the Internet while they slept. But Wills said the chats were about a fantasy that didn't actually occur.
Alameno was arrested again after a March 2007 court hearing and accused of six felonies claiming he had inappropriate contact with girls aged 10 and 13 while riding ATVs at his property in the summer of 2006.
|Source: Post-Independent - Oct 8, 2008|
Update posted on Oct 8, 2008 - 10:41AM
- Glenwood Independent - March 21, 2007
Note: Classifications and other fields should not be used to determine what specific charges the suspect is facing or was convicted of - they are for research and statistical purposes only. The case report and subsequent updates outline the specific charges. Charges referenced in the original case report may be modified throughout the course of the investigation or trial, so case updates, when available, should always be considered the most accurate reflection of charges.
For more information regarding classifications and usage of this database, please visit the database notes and disclaimer.