Contact Noel Matos Montalvo
	Noel Matos Montalvo # FH-9391 SCI Greene 175 Progress Drive Waynesburg, PA 15370 USA
	DOB: May 16, 1966 (Puerto Rico)

Noel Matos Montalvo's case data
Status	possibly innocent
State and County	Pennsylvania, York County
Case No.	753 CA 1999
Crime	one count of 1st Degree Murder, one count of 2nd Degree Murder, and Burglary
Date of Crime	April 19, 1998
Date of Arrest	August 6, 2002
Date of Conviction	March 19, 2003
Sentence	Death Penalty (1), Life without Parole (1), 10-20 years (underlapping concurrent)
Age at the Date of Crime	31
Contributing Factors	Perjury, Official Misconduct, Ineffectiveness of Counsel
Did DNA evidence contribute to the conviction?	No (no match)
Is there DNA evidence to test?	N/A

Introduction

Brief Description of the Crime
On April 19,1998 at 12:28 P.M., York City Police officers responded to a phone call from a neighbor of victim Miriam Ascencio reporting that her door glass was broken, and a man was laying motionless inside on the floor. Upon entering, police found the body of Manuel Santana ( aka Nelson Lugo) on the kitchen floor, several feet inside the door. They also found the body of Miriam Ascencio in the adjoining bedroom.

One witness told police that he saw both victims at Swizzles Bar the night before,and they were still there when he left at 1:30 A.M. on April 19, 1998. Other witnesses reported hearing disturbances in her apartment during the night, and heard the known voice of Milton Montalvo (my brother) yelling to be let in prior to the other noises. The most reliable time for the disturbance was between 2:30 A.M. and 3:30 A.M. on April 19th, based on the testimony of Fidelio Morel who said he had looked at his clock, and it was 2:25 A.M. when he heard Milton’s voice, and heard the disturbance in her apartment about 20 minutes later.

No one called police that night. It was 10 hours later when a neighbor saw the broken glass, and the man on the floor.

Milton had been the common-law husband of Miriam until recently, and he had been living with my wife Ketty and I, on and off since. The autopsies revealed that both victims were beaten, Santana (Lugo) was stabbed in the heart, and Miriam had her throat cut several times. Police recovered over 100 items of evidence,with extensive blood. They matched blood found on the door mini-blinds and on a white cloth bag, with the D.N.A. of my brother, Milton. I was excluded from all the evidence. They also tested a used condom. It had the D.N.A. of both victims, and a third unknown person.

Police found the victim’s door locked, indicating the killer had keys to lock it. They also found the phone jack pulled out of the wall. Miriam was naked from the waist down, with her panties placed over her face. Santana (Lugo) was found with a tube of lipstick shoved in his mouth. The police reported numerous defensive cuts on Santanas’ (Lugo’s) hands, and believe he was attacked first, and died from a single stab wound into the heart. They believed Miriam was attacked second, and she had extensive defensive wounds, several blunt force injuries including skull fractures, and several deep slashes to her neck, nearly decapitating her. They never identified if those blunt force injuries were caused by fists, or something in the apartment used as a weapon.

Alibi Description

Based on the police reports and the testimony given at trial,these murders occurred on Sunday, April 19, 1998 between 2:30 A.M. and 3:30 A.M.

At the time of these murders, I lived with my wife Ketty Marisol Heredia De Matos at 452 S. George Street in York, Pennsylvania. This was several blocks away from the murder scene in Miriam Ascencio’s apartment at 233 E. Philadelphia Street in York, Pennsylvania. On Saturday night, April 18, 1998, we were home at 9:00 P.M., when our friends Patricia Ascencio and her boyfriend Angel Santos stopped over. My wife Ketty is a beautician, and she had agreed to work on Patricia’s hair and nails. We all ate some pizza and my wife made a stew also. I talked with Angel for awhile, before going to sleep alone. My wife Ketty commented on my snoring to our guests.

Angel Santos later told police that at around 1:35 A.M. on April 19, 1998, my brother Milton stopped over. Milton had been living with us on and off, since he was evicted by his common-law wife, Miriam Ascencio. Miriam was a good friend, and the aunt of Patricia.

Santos told police that Milton asked him for $20.00 to buy gas. He said he refused, and Milton drove away in his Dodge van. Santos told police that he and Patricia left at 2:00 A.M. and went home.

It was about 2 hours later that my brother Milton came to our door and woke Ketty and I up. He told us that he had a fight with Miriam and a man and beat them up. Milton never said that he killed anyone.

We had already planned to move to Florida soon. Milton told us that Miriam would cause trouble and tell police that I was in violation of probation in Puerto Rico. So we decided to leave for Florida right away. We did stop and visit Miguel Soto in Lancaster at around 5:00 A.M. on April 19, 1998, then left within 30 minutes. We later learned that Milton was arrested in Miami (Florida) during a police prostitution sting, and was charged and convicted of these murders.

I did not know that I was also wanted, and I was arrested in New Jersey on August 6, 2002. I was tried separately three (3) years after my brother Milton. Officer Daniels was permitted to testify at my trial about Angel Santos’ statement, but my alibi witnesses did not testify. They were Angel Santos, my wife Ketty, and myself. I was home asleep when these murders occurred, and I had no reason to do this.

Statement of the Case

It is quite easy to be sent to Death Row. All it takes is a prosecutor who seeks to send one there. In my case, there is no physical evidence, no biological evidence (DNA) to support a conviction, and there is nothing but the word of the only witness, a confessed perjurer.

On January 20, 2000, my older brother Milton Noel Matos Montalvo, was on trial for slaying Miriam Acensio and Nelson Vidal Lugo of York, Pennsylvania, USA. When his trial was over, his lawyer requested a jury instruction which sought to implicate me in the offenses. What the judge, Sheryl Ann Dorney, and D.A. Thomas Henry Kelly, said at sidebar out of the hearing of the jury can only be called remarkable:
THE COURT: Actually, the only evidence to even put his brother in the apartment is the statement of Esther Roldan Soto.
D.A. KELLY: Right, exactly, and nothing to corroborate that whatsoever.
[Comm. vs. Milton Noel Matos Montalvo, January 20, 2000, page 180]

Three (3) years after the same judge, Sheryl Ann Dorney, and the same D.A., Thomas Henry Kelly, had noted that there was “nothing to corroborate” the testimony of Esther Roldan Soto, they joined hands to convict me of killing the two York residents, Miriam Acensio and Nelson Vidal Lugo.

Trial Court Errors

The only state witness Esther Roldan Soto testified at Milton Noel’s trial that she had heard him tell of killing Miriam Acensio. At my trial, she testified that I had bragged about killing the woman [Miriam Acensio]. Indeed, at a pre-trial hearing in Milton Noel’s case, she swore that she had heard me brag about raping the poor woman [Miriam Acensio]. Nonetheless, when all the tests were done, [DNA] samples of the semen found in the woman did not match me. The only match of the semen found in the woman was of Nelson Vidal Lugo, the second victim.

It is said that a fair trial truly begins and ends with the judge. In the York county court, Judge Sheryl Ann Dorney, an experienced, long-time jurist told the all-white jury some interesting, but erroneous, things. While explaining the idea of reasonable doubt, she told the jury both correct and incorrect statements of the law, to the defendant’s prejudice and abrogation of the judicial process. The Judge, as a human being, it is believed, felt considerable bias vis-avis me, given nature of the case, and the performance of her honor as trial Judge, who had earlier sentenced my brother, Milton Noel Matos Montalvo. Specifically, the court committed the following discrete errors:

Re: Reasonable Doubt Instruction (charge to the jury, 3/19/2003)
THE COURT: So if the Commonwealth has not sustained its burden to that level, the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, then your verdict must be guilty. If, in fact, you find that the Commonwealth has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, then your verdict should be guilty. [Comm. vs. Noel Matos Montalvo, CCP (March 19, 2003.)]

Such a flawed instruction as this, which wrongfully suggests that the jury should return a guilty verdict whether the state has or has not sustained its burden, leaves the jury with little option but to convict. For an average juror, unless s/he is tought in the law, confronts many ideas that are far different from logic, and follows the judge’s lead because of the majesty of the court, even if the instructions are illogical. For, no matter how a lawyer or a judge instruct, the question is how does a layman view it. Here, where there was both a correct and incorrect statement of the law, the jury can only be confused, given their instructions. Gray vs. Mississippi, 481 U.S. 648 (1987). Although not precisely to the point, judicial error on reasonable doubt instructions have been the basis of appellate relief. Morris vs. Cain 186 F. 3d 581 (5CA 1999) (instruction defining reasonable doubt diluted prosecution’s burden of proof). When explaining the verdict forms to the jury, the court committed a similar error, this time caught by the defense counsel:
Later, that same morning, she told the jury:

THE COURT: …and as I said, if you find that the defendant was not involved in this, you should find him guilty of all of these charges.
DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Not Guilty, Judge.
THE COURT: Not Guilty. Now was that a freudian slip, Not Guilty of all of these charges…
[March 19, 2003., pp.31-32]

Rarely are jurors lawyers. If they got two confusing sets of instructions, which set controls their deliberations?
Earlier in the charge, the court gave an instruction that seemed to meander, and failed to provide the requisite guidance which the jury and the accused have a right to receive. While giving a “cautionary instruction” to the jury about how to receive Soto’s evidence, the court instructed thusly:
They should examine closely and carefully and receive with caution the testimony of Esther Roldan Soto. If you recall, she testified for the Commonwealth. If you find that she confessed, that she committed perjury at the trial of the defendant’s brother, Milton Noel Matos Montalvo. In addition, if you decide that a witness deliberately testified falsely about a material point, that is about a matter which could affect the outcome of this trial, you may for that reason alone choose to disbelieve the rest of that witness’s testimony, but you are not required to do so. [N.T. — 3/19/2003.,pp.10-11].

The court, at formal sentencing, insisted that the Jury had found the defendant, Noel Matos Montalvo, guilty of two (2) counts of first degree (1°) murder; not one 1st and one 2nd, as indeed, it had:

D.A. THOMAS HENRY KELLY: …During the last term of criminal court, Your Honor, the defendant was convicted of first degree murder of Miriam Acensio and second degree murder of Nelson Vidal Lugo.
THE COURT: No, he was convicted of first degree murder for Nelson Vidal Lugo.
D.A. THOMAS HENRY KELLY. …I was under the inpression it was a first and second, Your Honor.
THE COURT: No, two firsts, one with the death penalty and one with life.
ATTORNEY CUTRUZZULA: No, Judge. I respectfully disagree, It was second degree because there was no — when I checked off the jury sheet, it was a second degree murder with respect to Mr. Nelson Vidal Lugo, because that wasn’t considered for the death penalty. It was only one death sentence recommended.
THE COURT: You’re right, my apologies…
[N.T. — Date: 4/14/2003., p.2]

As I have said, the court is only human. But, this is not Philadelphia, were judges handle dozens of death cases in a few terms. In York county, were there is a dearth of death sentences, and where the same judge, Sheryl Ann Dorney, handles both defendants, where both are brothers, it becomes understandable but lamentable for that the court commits errors, of repeatedly proclaiming the defendant “Guilty”, even if the state has not met its burden. This reflects a frame of mind that infected the trial with bias.

For these reasons, the judgment should be reversed, and a new trial granted, based upon the comulative affect of judicial bias, Tumey vs. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 523 (1927). Edwards vs. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 647 (1997) (“A criminal defendant tried by a partial judge is entitled to have his conviction set aside, no matter how strong the evidence against him”). That is especially so where, as in this case, the evidence is weak. As to the errors in jury instruction, it is clear that when a jury is given a correct and incorrect instruction on a critical legal point, as the record reflects happened here, this is reversible error. Comm. vs. Murphy, 559 Pa. 71 (1999); Pa. Crim. Prac. § 27.24 ; Comm. vs. Clark, 453 Pa. Super. 257, 683 A. 2d 901 (1996). This should, I believe, be added to § E. this way:

Re: Trial Counsel’s Actions of Omissions
Trial counsel Francis S. Cutruzzula, Esq. and Frank C. Arcuri, Esq. assumed, rightly, that it was a weak, circumstantial, case and that assumption lead them to adopt a minimalist strategy of virtually abandoning the questioning of most of the witnesses, and relying, almost wholly, one super-brief defense/guilt phase, and his closing argument. That assumption, in light of the seriousness of the charges, the nature of the case, the sentences faced by the defendant, was ineffectiveness born of over-confidence. In Pavel vs. Hollins, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 16809 (2 CA July 25, 2001.), trial counsels adopted a similar strategy, and it constituted ineffectiveness of counsels. The counsel was ineffective in failing to prepare the defense because of the assumption that the witness of prosecution case would result in dismissal; failing to call witnesses who would have supported accused’s account. Although “strategic” in some sense of the word, this was not the sort of conscious, reasonably informed decision made by an attorney with an eye to benefiting his client that the federal courts have denominated “strategic” and have benn especially reluctant to disturb. In this case, Attorney Francis S. Cutruzzula was similarly ineffective.

Counsel’s cross-examination of Ms. Beth Ann Giles, Pennsylvania State Police [DNA] Specialist was representative, he only asked one question:
[N.T. — Date: 3/17/2003.,p.158]

CROSS EXAMINATION BY ATTORNEY CUTRUZZULA:
Q: Thank you, Ms. Giles, how many zeroes are in the quintillion?
A: If you start at a million there are 6, and at a billion there are 9, and quadrillion 12, and then you go to quintillion which would be 15.
ATTORNEY CUTRUZZULA: Thank you, Ms. Giles. I have nothing further.
[End N.T. text]

Trial Counsel’s performance with other witnesses, such as Pennsylvania State Pathologist, Dr. Saralee Funke, M.D. was similary brief, truncated and constitutionally ineffective. He only asked two questions. [N.T. — Date: 3/17/2003.,p.111, cross examination]

ATTORNEY CUTRUZZULA: Judge, just quickly.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY ATTORNEY CUTRUZZULA:
Q: Doctor, it’s your opinion based upon your experience and qualifications that [sic] Miriam Acensio was murdered, correct?
A: Yes
Q: And the same opinion holds true to Nelson Vidal Lugo?
A: Yes
ATTORNEY CUTRUZZULA: I have no further questions.
[End N.T. text]

In a death case, even a weak death case, defense requires more than this. This is a Pavel violation, in the rule.

I would also suggest a similar argument
Re: witnesses that were available, and were neither presented nor prepared to testify.
It seems that counsel failed to interview these potential defense witnesses who would have provided a complete defense alibi. These include Patricia Acensio (niece of Miriam Acensio – Victim), Patricia’s husband (Angel Santos, alias Tony), and Ketty Marisol Heredia De Matos (my wife).

If this is so, they would prepare a similar argument, only based upon: Lord vs. Wood, 184 F. 3d 1083 (9CA), cert, dinied, 528 U.S. 1198 (2000) (defense counsel failed to present testimony of three witnesses with highly exculpatory information and decided against calling them as witnesses without first personally interviewing them).
Re: Pts.#: 6, 7, 8 (This is unclear: interpreter?), 9, 10, 11 and 12 in general agree. However, I would add the following Re: #13
According to the rules, it is not an error for defendant to give the closing argument at the guilt/ innocence phase. According to Pennsylvania Rule Criminal Process, Rule 604 (B), the rule requires that the Attorney for the Commonwealth shall be entitled to make one argument which shall be made last. “The accused argues last at the sentencing phase”, per Rule 806. I do not agree with prior pt. #13. However, the court did commit various errors, some as a result of the judge’s bias carried over from handling the other Matos Montalvo case, and others subconsciously, given the nature of the case, reflected by her penchant to give both erroneous and correct jury instructions, as well as errors of law, and errors of fact.

Re: Prosecutoral Misconduct
The prosecutor violated due process art. I; § 9 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania, and the 5th, 14th Amendments to the U.S.A. Constitution, when he presented “inherently factually contradictory theories” by presenting, one set of facts before the Milton Noel Matos Montalvo case, and another before the Noel Matos Montalvo case, simply put, both cannot be true. Indeed, at the trial, the States’s star witness, Esther Roldan Soto, did in fact confess, after some hedging, under cross-examination, that she testified differently in two different proceedings:

CROSS-EXAMINATION PER ATTORNEY MR. FRANCIS S. CUTRUZZULA
Q: So at the preliminary hearing you told the court that Milton told you he had killed his wife, isn’t that what you said?
A: I don’t remember. All I remember is he said went to the store and said that, and went to my house and said that.
Q: So Milton went to your house and said that — Milton said to you that he had killed his wife and all you remember is he went to the store and said that. Isn’t that correct, ma’am?
Q: Do you remember being asked now, Ms. Soto? I’m sorry. Page 47, Mr. Kelly, line 17. Did the man who is now in the orange uniform tell you how he committed the killing? That question was posed to you by Mr. Patterson, do you remember that?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you remember saying he said that he killed her, meaning Milton Montalvo?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay, so you told the Judge under oath the last time in May of 1999 that Milton confessed to killing his wife, correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, today you tell this jury that it was actually “Italiano” [“Italiano” is Noel Matos Montalvo’s nick name], who said he killed the wife, correct?
A: Yes.
[N.T. — Date: 3/14/2003, pp. 44-45]

In no way can this even be remotely seen as reliable evidence. It is of such an unbelievable, and unreliable nature, as to violate fundamental notions of due process. Smith Vs. Groose 205 F. 3d 1045 (8CA), Cert. Denied, 121 S. Ct. 441 (2000) – (Prosecutor violated due process by using, “inherently factually contradictory theories” of case at separate proceedings of petitioner and alleged co-conspirator).

At trial, with a D.A. (Thomas Henry Kelly), hungry for a big double death penalty, with a judge (Sheryl Ann Dorney), who seemed confused, and defense lawyers (Francis S. Cutruzzula, Esq., and Frank C. Arcuri, Esq.) who were so over-confident that they barely asked a question. I could not write, not read, and not speak English, was mere human kindling for the fire. I was there – only in name.

My older brother Milton Noel Matos Montalvo
The case was never about me, only about my older brother. His former common-law wife Miriam Acensio’s body was identified by her son, Jaime Cancel Acensio. The crime scene was turned over to detectives who gathered over 100 pieces of evidence. They immediately sought out my brother Milton Noel Matos Montalvo, after neighbors had told them of his connection to Miriam Acensio and about hearing his voice that night demanding to be let in.

Milton Noel Matos Montalvo was arrested 9 months and 12 days later in Miami, Florida, during a police prostitution sting at the Super Bowl. They soon learned that he was wanted for murder in York, Pennsylvania. He was extradited back there. At Milton’s trial in 2000, state police laboratory analysis testified that his blood matched the blood found on the mini-blinds inside the broken glass (see “Brief Description of the Case” above), as well as on a white cloth bag found near Miriam’s body, suggesting that he wiped his hands after cutting them. When arrested in Miami, Florida, they took photos of scars on his hands. Blood analysis showed that Milton’s DNA was unique to 1 out of 1.4 billion Hispanics.

The prosecutor’s theory was that Milton Noel Matos Montalvo was angry that Miriam Acensio had evicted him and took a new boyfriend. They said Milton never paid any bills and took Miriam’s items to sell for drug money. They argued that he killed Nelson Vidal Lugo first, since he had multiple defensive cuts on his hands and died from a single stab wound to his heart. They believed that Milton then brutally beat Miriam, before using a knife to slice her neck multiple times. The pathologist testified to the brutal nature of the attack, and that a tube of lipstick was shoved inside the mouth of Nelson Vidal Lugo, a very personal sign.

At Milton Noel Matos Montalvo’s trial, the prosecutor presented many other witnesses against him, especially Esther Roldan Soto. She and her husband Miguel Soto ran a Spanish grocery in York, Pennsylvania, out they lived in Lancaster. She knew Milton as a regular customer, and Milton had helped Miguel Soto pick up products in Reading for his grocery in York, Pennsylvania, on April 18, 1998. She testified that Noel was “Italiano” and did not know then that Milton and Noel were brothers. She claimed that Detective Roland Camacho forced her to testify, and she had been assaulted by police, that I also threatened to kill Miriam Acensio, and that I confessed the next morning to killing her. She testified that Detective Roland Camacho gave her all the details and information of the crime before he recorded the interview on December 12, 1998. He threatened to close her grocery, take her kids away, send her to prison, if she did not testify the way he wanted. Therefore terrified of what the Detective Roland Camacho would do, she told one story, then another, and then another, and then another. She told three different stories in Milton Noel Matos Montalvo’s trial, and another story in my trial. She also testified that she had told defense investigator Charles Kleber about Detective Roland Camacho’s threats that forced her to lie in court. Esther Roldan Soto testified that Milton showed up at her house in Lancaster early on the Sunday morning, April 19, 1998, and that her husband gave Milton some money before he left for Miami, Florida. She did not mention anything I said, but that I was also with Milton as was my wife, Ketty.

At Milton’s trial, the prosecutor never argued that I was involved in these murders, and never argued there were two killers with two different weapons, one knife and one blunt force. It was Milton’s defense, Attorney Daniel Rendine, who argued that I killed the victims instead of Milton. In a sidebar transcript, Judge Sheryl Ann Dorney and Assistant District Attorney Thomas Henry Kelly both agree that nothing connects me to this case except the statement of Esther Roldan Soto (see quote above). The Jury convicted Milton Noel Matos Montalvo and sentenced him to two death twice in 2000.

Unknown to me, they had issued arrest and fugitive warrants in December 18, 1998 — 8 months after the murders, and one year before Milton’s trial. Why did the prosecutor then state that nothing connected me to this case at Milton’s trial? Of course, we had learned about Milton’s arrest and conviction while we were living in Miami, Florida.

At the time after the Miriam Acensio and Nelson Vidal Lugo killings, and after our guests had left (Sunday morning – April 19, 1998), Milton returned to our apartment. He said that he had beaten up Miriam Acensio and Nelson Vidal Lugo. He said that Miriam Acensio knew about my 1987 probation violation in Puerto Rico and would probably tell the police. He knew that we were leaving York, Pennsylvania to move to Miami, Florida the next week (Saturday – on April 25, 1998), and suggested we leave right away, and to take him with us on our move to Miami, Florida. I was already planning this since a high paying construction job was awaiting me there.

Milton stoped off in Lancaster to visit Miguel Soto around 5:00 A.M. (Sunday morning – April 19, 1998) I believe that Miguel Soto gave Milton some money for the trip, but I did not hear him confess to any murders. Esther Roldan Soto stayed upstairs while Milton spoke to Miguel Soto. Milton lived with my family and myself in Miami, Florida for a while. Then he moved out his own. My wife Ketty and I lived in Miami, Florida until February 1, 2002. We drove that day up to New Jersey, and moved to Guttenberg,New Jersey that same day. I was given an even better paying construction job there.

My Arrest
I was arrested in my apartment at 5:16 A.M. (Tuesday morning – on August 6, 2002) by local police and F.B.I. special agents. I learned that I was wanted for these murders. I openly declared my innocence and gave blood, hair, saliva, fibers, and fingerprints voluntarily to test for DNA. I was extradited back to York, Pennsylvania on September 7, 2002.

While at the county prison, they developed some lying jailhouse snitches against me, but decided not to use them at the trial. I was denied a preliminary hearing. There were no pre-trial motions filed.

My Trial
I was tried on March 10 to 19, 2003. They only questioned 42 people before selecting a capital case jury of 14 people. All of the jurors were Caucasian, several with obvious bias towards Hispanics and Blacks.

I made the mistake of hiring an attorney in New Jersey while waiting to be extradited. He lied and claimed he was also licensed in Pennsylvania. Attorney Francis S. Cutruzzula, Esq., was admitted for this trial only under the Pro Hac Vice rule. He used some of the money my family paid him to secretly hire Attorney Frank C. Arcuri, Esq. in York, Pennsylvania as local counsel. He falsely told me and my family in Puerto Rico that Attorney Frank C. Arcuri, Esq. was his law partner. From September 3, 2002 until my trial on March 10, 2003, Attorney Francis S. Cutruzzula, Esq. refused to visit me to discuss the case.

Attorney Francis S. Cutruzzula, Esq. then handled my trial, and Attorney Frank C. Arcuri, Esq. just sat there. They decided not to present any defense, confident that I would be found “not guilty”.

Only Miguel Soto testified for the defense. He testified about the unreliable word of his now ex-wife, Esther Roldan Soto. He said she had ruined his name. He said that Milton Noel Matos Montalvo confessed both murders to him when he visited his house that Sunday morning – April 19, 1998. But Soto said Esther Roldan Soto was never there to hear it, because she was upstairs, and only came down to hear about the planned trip to Miami, Florida. He did not hear me say anything.

At my trial on March 10 to 19, 2003, Esther Roldan Soto gave completely different testimony to the one she gave at Milton’s trial in 2000. She claimed that she heard Milton threaten to kill Miriam Acensio on her grocery phone in York, Pennsylvania (Saturday – April 18, 1998). She said that I showed up with my wife Ketty, and told my brother that I would kill Miriam Acensio for him. She claimed that when we showed up at her house early on the Sunday morning – April 19, 1998. She heard me tell her husband Miguel Soto that I killed the woman with a knife, kicked her, and “fucker her”. She claimed that Milton was the one who stayed silent. She claimed that she phoned the police two weeks after the murder, and gave a statement. But that she was forced to admit that she gave her statement on December 12, 1998, nearly eight months after the murders. She said she had told police that Milton Noel Matos Montalvo had killed the man, and I killed the woman.

Judge Sheryl Ann Dorney admitted a typed transcript of the audio taped interview she made with Detective Roland Camacho on December 12, 1998. It was not signed or dated by her. They played a cassette copy of the original micro cassette tape. She claimed that I had said I put the knife in Miriam Acensio eyes and cut her throat. She admitted to testifying at Milton’s trial that Detective Roland Camacho had threatened her and fed her the details of the crime. But now said that when she said she was afraid for her life, she did not mean because of Detective Roland Camacho threats, she meant she feared I was still free.

Spanish translators were used at trial, and her testimony was so erratic that it lost its meaning in translation. The jury did not pay proper attention. She even admitted, she had a pending theft charge in Lancaster that she hoped prosecutors would drop.

The state police laboratory experts excluded me from all the DNA evidence in this case, over 100 items. They also tested a used condom found in a trash bag in the apartment. They identified DNA belonging to Miriam Acensio, Nelson Vidal Lugo, and another unidentified person. It did not even match Milton Noel Matos Montalvo. If there were two killers, it was not me.

This prejudiced all white jury did not pay attention to my attorneys doing nothing but make the jury dislike them due to their arguments with the prosecutor. I was convicted and sentenced to death on the same day.

I testified at the penalty phase without any preparation, as did my mother Eulalia Montalvo Melendez, and my wife, Ketty Marisol Heredia De Matos. I declared my innocence, but it was useless. And, the prosecutor objected since I had not testified at the trial.

After The Trial
After my trial, both the attorneys were suspended by the Disciplinary Board of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court because of misconduct in their illegal partnership in my case. They were ordered the return of [$20,000.oo] twenty-thousand of dollars they had extored from my family to handle the appeals. They still have not been punished for their misconduct before and during the trial. Attorney Francis S. Cutruzzula is also being investigated by New Jersey officials.

The police had pressured a truck driver named Nici Negron to lie. He had testified that Milton Noel Matos Montalvo phoned him at 12:00 midnight (Saturday – April 18, 1998), to tow his van from one place in York, Pennsylvania to another. He claimed he towed the van between 12:25 A.M. and 12:45 A.M. [Sunday morning – April 19, 1998.] and a bearded man and pregnant woman were in the van. At the trial, he was shown a photo of my wife Ketty and me taken many months after the murder. He falsely testified that my wife Ketty and I were in that van when he towed it.

Patricia Acensio was good friend of my wife Ketty and me, as was her aunt Miriam Acensio who was one of the victims. At the trial, Patricia Acensio lied and testified that she and her husband Angel Santos left my apartment at 11:00 P.M. (Saturday – April 18, 1998). Angel Santos went missing at the trial, so Officer Lisa Daniels was permitted to testify about his statement. Officer Lisa Daniels testified that Patricia Acensio was next to Angel Santos when he was interviewed at the police station, with a Spanish interpreter. Angel Santos told her that they left my apartment at 2:00 A.M. (Sunday morning – April 19, 1998), and Patricia Acensio never disagreed.

After the trial, I received a letter in Spanish from Esther Roldan Soto. She said that Detective Roland Camacho forced her to lie at the trial, and she apologized. That letter was translated into English by a certified translator and submitted to the court by my then new attorney, Mary Rebeca Ennis, Esq. Judge Sheryl Ann Dorney did not respond, and none of the courts have heard testimony yet concerning my appeal.

Based on the testimony at my trial, the murders occurred Sunday morning – April 19, 1998 between the hours of 2:30 A.M. and 3:30 A.M. Heriberto Roque knew both victims from work, and he saw them both drinking and dancing at Swizzles Bar in York, Pennsylvania between 11:30 P.M. on Saturday – April 18, 1998 and 1:30 A.M. Sunday morning – April 19, 1998. Several neighbors reported hearing the familiar voice of my older brother Milton Noel Matos Montalvo yelling to be let in by Miriam Acensio, prior to glass breaking, two men arguing, walls banging, dragging on floors, then silence. The most reliable testimony was that of Fidelio Morel who lived above Miriam Acensio. Fidelio Morel testified that he looked at his clock when Milton’s loud yelling woke him up. It was 2:25 A.M. Sunday morning – April 19, 1998. He soon heard Miriam Acensio yell out twice to call the police, but he did not because there were always fights in that apartment every week. It was about 20 minutes later (12:45 A.M.) when he heard glass breaking and dragging noises from her apartment. He said Milton’s voice was the only male voice that he heard. It was not until 10 hours later that her neighbor Vincent Edward Rice saw the broken glass and the man on the floor and that police were called. They arrived at 12:28 P.M. on Sunday – April 19, 1998.

How you can help

Share this article and go to the IIPPI Forum for updates!

I need your assistance and cooperation to hire a private legal staff. No matter the donation you (can) make, I will be forever grateful. The only way to deposit money into a prisoner’s account in Pennsylvania is through JPAY. See the website of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections at www.cor.pa.gov/Inmates/Pages/Inmate-Accounts-JPay.aspx#.VYP2y0b83IU

Donations can also be made via a supporter’s PayPal account: lacaballota012009@hotmail.com.

I do have a Facebook profile and a Twitter account: Noel Matos Montalvo @matos_montalvo.

I need friends, groups, organizations and anyone who wants to help me. I just speak, write and read a little bit English, but co-prisoners help me with the language.

Documents

Officer Lisa Daniels’ report of witness Angel Santos (pdf, 6 pages)
April 19, 1998

Fidelio Morel’s statement to police (pdf, 3 pages)
Spanish statement with English translation
April 21, 1998/ December 1, 1999

Police transcript: Esther Soto’s audio taped interview (pdf, 18 pages)
with Det. Camacho
December 12, 1998

Police notes (pdf, 1 page)
Page 379: Esther Soto spit on police when arrested and forced to testify against Milton Montalvo

Esther Roldan Soto’s testimony at Milton’s trial (pdf, 88 pages)
(May – June 2000)

Esther Soto’s testimony at Milton’s trial (pdf, 21 page)
Page 46-66, Soto testified that Milton killed both victims

Esther Roldan Soto’s testimony at Noel’s trial (pdf, 81 pages)
(March 14, 2003)

Affidavit of Probable Cause (pdf, 1 page)
Police Criminal Complaint
December 22, 1998

DNA Reports (pdf, 31 pages)
All police D.N.A. reports on victims, Milton Montalvo and Noel Montalvo
List included
Noel was excluded

Officer Lisa Daniels’ testimony (pdf, 27 pages)

Closing Arguments – Defense (pdf, 22 pages)

Closing Arguments – State (pdf, 19 pages)

Transcript, page 180, penalty phase (pdf, 1 page)
Judge Dorney states nothing connects Noel except Esther Soto’s statement to police

Sentence and Noel’s statement to the judge (pdf, 13 pages)

Letter from Esther Soto to Noel Montalvo after trial (pdf, 5 pages)
Spanish letter and English translation by defense expert translator
Soto admits she was forced by police to lie
March 16, 2003

Motion For Leave To Amend Concise Statement Of Matters Complained Of On Appeal (pdf, 23 pages)
April 19, 2003

Amended Concise Statement Of Matters Complained Of On Appeal (pdf, 17 pages)
August 10, 2005

Amended Petition and Brief in Support for Writ of Habeas Corpus and for Collateral Relief from Criminal Conviction to the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa. C.S. § 9541 et seq. (pdf, 285 pages)
in the Court of Common Pleas of York County, Pennsylvania
February 1, 2010

Supplement to the Amended Petition and Brief in Support for Writ of Habeas Corpus and for Collateral Relief from Criminal Conviction Pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa. C.S. § 9541 et seq. (pdf, 35 pages)
in the Court of Common Pleas of York County, Pennsylvania
April 28, 2011

Report by the Forensic Investigative Service (pdf, 6 pages)
July 28, 2011

Brief in Support of Writ of Habeas Corpus and Petition for Collateral Relief from Criminal Conviction Pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa. C.S. § 9541 et seq. (pdf, 94 pages)
in the Court of Common Pleas of York County, Pennsylvania
November 9, 2011

Post Conviction Relief Act (P.C.R.A.) Hearing I (pdf, 134 pages)
Witnesses: J. Robert Chuk (p. 25-40), Frank C. Arcuri (p. 42-94), Angel Antonio Santos (p. 95-129)
Friday, March 18, 2011
In the Court of Commonn Pleas of York County, Pennsylvania
before Honorable Sheryl A. Dorney, Judge

Post Conviction Relief Act (P.C.R.A.) Hearing II (pdf, 58 (112) pages)
Witness: Francis S. Cutruzzula (p. 4-102)
Monday, July 11, 2011
In the Court of Commonn Pleas of York County, Pennsylvania
before Honorable Sheryl A. Dorney, Judge

Post Conviction Relief Act (P.C.R.A.) Hearing III (pdf, 63 (126) pages)
Witnesses: Roland Camacho (p. 10-50), Dennis Williams (p. 50-64), Lisa Daniels (p. 66-74), Mary Ennis (p. 82-122)
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
In the Court of Commonn Pleas of York County, Pennsylvania
before Honorable Sheryl A. Dorney, Judge

Post Conviction Relief Act (P.C.R.A.) Hearing IV (pdf, 54 (108) pages)
Witnesses: Ralph Robert Tressel (p. 132-188), Allen Fuentes (p. 193-200), Gerald Lord (p. 201-218)
Thursday, September 1, 2011
In the Court of Commonn Pleas of York County, Pennsylvania
before Honorable Sheryl A. Dorney, Judge

Milton Montalvo – Noel Montalvo’s older brother and co-defendant (pdf, 167 pages)
Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and for Collateral Relief from Criminal Conviction Pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 PA. C.S. § 9541 ET SEQ.
July 16, 2012
Exhibits:
(1): Verification of P.C.R.A. Petition
(2): Dr. Ricardo Weinstein Report
(3): Dr. Julie Kessel Report
(4): Montalvo vs. Wetzel Order, April 30, 2012
(5): Request for Relief
Attention! This Brief contains information that might exonerate Noel Matos Montalvo. Two psychiatrists and expert witnesses confirm that Noel’s older brother Milton accepts responsibility for both murders. He told them how he killed his lover Miriam Acensio and the man (Nelson Vidal Lugo aka Manuel Santana) she had just had sex with that night. Noel was not there. He did not conspire with Milton and had nothing to do with the double murder.

Brief of Appellant (pdf, 184 pages)
filed with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on February 3, 2014
Appendix A: PCRA Opinion and Order of the Court of Common Pleas of York County
(dated and entered on January 29, 2013)
Appendix B: Memorandum Opinion of the Court of Common Pleas of York County
(that is undated and was entered on May 16, 2013)
Appendix C: Order of Court of Common Pleas in CP-67-CR-0000753-1999
(dated December 3, 2013 and entered on December 4, 2013)
Appendix D: Statement of Matters Complained of dated and filed on March 22, 2013
Appendix E: Amended and Supplemental Statement of Matters Complained of dated and filed on December2, 2013
Note: This Brief contains information about Noel Matos Montalvo’s actual innocence.

Brief for Appellee (pdf, 89 pages)
Appeal from the January 29, 2013 Opinion and Order of the York County Court of Common Pleas Denying Post-Conviction Relief at Docket No. CR-753-1999
filed June 2, 2014
Note: This Brief cannot be brought into line with the legal documents of this case, and thus, it contradicts Noel Matos Montalvo’s Brief.

Court Opinion (pdf, 18 pages)
Pennsylvania Supreme Court, No. 678 CAP, Madame Justice Todd
decided April 27, 2015
remanding this case back to the Court of Common Pleas:
“This is a capital appeal from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of York County denying Appellant Noel Matos Montalvo’s petition for relief under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. For the reasons that follow, we are constrained to vacate the order and remand this matter to the PCRA court for further proceedings, as discussed below.”

External Links

http://www.pacourts.us/courts/supreme-court/court-opinions/
The Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania
court opinions and more