Fred Olivares states that he founded Talon Investigations after his FBI career and later performed investigative work for Thomas McHugh in United States v. Bradley Croft. In a sworn affidavit submitted after a grievance involving McHugh, Olivares offered an explanation for why a defense subpoena to the Midlothian Police Department was never served. A separate sworn statement from attorney Paul A. Torres raises questions about a key part of that explanation.
What the subpoena sought
Olivares states that the defense obtained the subpoena on November 13, 2018. It was addressed to Robin West, Midlothian Police Department’s records custodian, and requested communications concerning Wes Keeling and others. According to Olivares, it also requested Keeling’s personnel file.
That request mattered because records concerning Keeling could have been relevant to assessing his credibility. The subpoena was not served, however, so this record does not establish what the department would have produced in response.
Olivares’s explanation in the McHugh grievance
In his March 28, 2022 affidavit (PDF), Olivares says he learned that Midlothian Police Department required in-person service and informed the defense team. He then describes receiving a December 12, 2018 email forwarded by Croft from Torres, who was handling a separate civil matter involving Keeling.
Olivares says he understood that Torres was locating a local process server for the civil case. He recalls that the same person would serve the police department subpoena. He further states that Croft said he would arrange the subpoena’s service, so Olivares turned to other trial preparation.
That is Olivares’s account. The affidavit does not identify a process server who accepted the criminal-case subpoena or provide proof that it was delivered for service.
What Torres says
In his sworn statement (PDF), Torres describes a different boundary between the two matters. Torres says he represented Croft in a 2019 civil lawsuit against Keeling and that a private process company served the civil citation around June 3, 2019.
Torres also states that he and Croft never discussed service of documents or subpoenas related to the criminal charges. He says he had no contact with Croft’s criminal defense lawyers and received no request concerning the criminal case.
Torres’s statement challenges any suggestion that Torres or his civil-case process server had agreed to handle the criminal subpoena. It does not, by itself, resolve whether Croft separately told Olivares he would arrange service through someone else. The accounts and any contemporaneous emails should be compared before reaching that conclusion.
The unresolved question
Croft disputes Olivares’s explanation and contends that it shifted responsibility for the unserved subpoena during the McHugh grievance. The two affidavits establish a concrete question: What instructions were actually given for serving the Midlothian Police Department subpoena, and to whom?
A finding that Olivares knowingly made a false statement would require more than the disagreement between these affidavits. The subpoena, the December 2018 email, service instructions, and any communications with a process server are the records most likely to clarify what happened.
Read the source documents
For broader context, review the Fred Olivares records overview and the subpoena and defense investigator record.