Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
NICKIE MILLER )
Plaintiff, )
v. )
)
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ) Case No.
Montgomery County Sheriff FRED )
SHORTRIDGE, in his individual )
capacity, Montgomery County )
Sheriff’s Department Officers in their ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Individual Capacity, RALPH )
CHARLES JR., MARK COLLIER, )
Montgomery County Jailer in his )
Individual Capacity, ERIC JONES, )
Montgomery County Commonwealth )
Attorney in his Individual Capacity, )
KEITH CRAYCRAFT, and Kentucky )
State Police Polygraph Examiner )
JOHN FYFFE, in his Individual )
Capacity. )
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
CHARLES JR. AND MARK COLLIER, Montgomery County Jailer ERIC JONES,
State Police Polygraph Examiner, JOHN FYFFE, and other unknown officers from
the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office and Montgomery County Regional Jail, and
state as follows:
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 2 of 44 - Page ID#: 2
Introduction
years of his life awaiting trial and facing a sentence of death for a crime he did not
commit.
2. Over the course of more than two years, Plaintiff lived in fear each day
3. Plaintiff suffered the severe injustice of being framed for a crime he did
not commit while battling cancer. The Defendants’ misconduct had a profound
4. This manifest injustice was not the result of mere flaws in the judicial
system. Rather, Defendant Fyffe and the Defendant Officers named herein
conspired to take his liberty by knowingly initiating false charges based on evidence
5. Thankfully, because it was fabricated, the evidence was flimsy and the
functioned in the sense that all of the charges were eventually dismissed, the
detainee just the same as if the Defendants had secured his wrongful conviction.
7. Mr. Miller now brings this lawsuit to enforce the Constitutional right
2
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 3 of 44 - Page ID#: 3
Constitution.
and 1367.
10. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c). On information and
belief, all parties reside in this judicial district, and the events giving rise to the
The Parties
Stanton, Kentucky.
12. At all relevant times, Defendants Fred Shortridge, Ralph Charles Jr.,
and Mark Collier were officers employed by the Montgomery County Sheriff’s
Office. Each of these Defendant Officers is sued in their individual capacity and
each acted under color of law and within the scope of their employment in engaging
the policies, practices, and customs of the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office.
3
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 4 of 44 - Page ID#: 4
sued in his individual capacity and acted under color of law and within the scope of
Attorney’s Office.
17. At all relevant times, Defendant Eric Jones, the Jailer of the
Regional Jail. Defendant Jones is sued in his individual capacity and acted under
color of law and within the scope of his employment in engaging in the actions
under Kentucky law. Defendant Montgomery County is responsible for the policies,
19. At all relevant times, Defendant John Fyffe was an employee of the
Kentucky State Police. Defendant Fyffe is sued in his individual capacity and acted
under color of law and within the scope of his employment in engaging in the
“Defendants.”
4
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 5 of 44 - Page ID#: 5
21. Paul Brewer was found dead at his home in Mt. Sterling, Kentucky on
22. Every death is tragic, but Mr. Brewer’s was especially so. Mr. Brewer
was found with two gunshot wounds to his head and both arms strapped to his bed
frame.
23. Police officers from the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office and
24. The Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office was the primary law-
enforcement agency responsible for the investigation into Mr. Brewer’s death.
25. The Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office received assistance during the
investigation from the Kentucky State Police, Powell County Sheriff’s Department,
26. Defendants Ralph Charles Jr. and Mark Collier led the investigation
27. Defendants Charles and Collier believed from the beginning that the
28. This theory was supported when the Defendant Officers discovered
that Mr. Brewer possessed nearly $50,000 in his checking account at the time of his
death.
5
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 6 of 44 - Page ID#: 6
29. Within two months of the murder, the Defendant Officers learned
Cody Hall.
31. In that interview, Mr. Hall informed these Defendant Officers that Mr.
Miller was not involved in the murder of Paul Brewer. Instead, Mr. Hall revealed
that Rick Mize and Misty Dehart were the two individuals likely responsible for the
murder.
32. Mr. Hall further informed the Defendant Officers that Rick Mize
returned home with a gun around the time that Mr. Brewer was killed. According
to Mr. Hall, Rick Mize was alone and placed the gun underneath his bed.
33. The Defendant Officers were further informed that a few days after
Mr. Brewer was killed, Rick Mize refused to drive Michelle Lawson to Mt. Sterling.
34. Mr. Hall revealed that Rick Mize admitted that he could not drive to
Mt. Sterling because he shot someone a few nights before and could not be seen
6
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 7 of 44 - Page ID#: 7
36. Approximately two weeks later, Defendant Charles received a call from
Michelle Lawson.
overheard between Rick Mize and Misty Dehart. Ms. Lawson informed Defendant
Charles that Rick Mize kept assuring Ms. Dehart during this conversation that
Cody Hall had already been arrested and implored her to say that “we weren’t
there.”
38. Defendant Charles learned that Bobby Mize criticized Rick Mize after
the call for continuing to speak with Ms. Dehart. In doing so, Bobby Mize informed
39. Approximately six months later, on August 24, 2012, Defendant Collier
40. During that interview, Ms. Helton revealed that she did not have any
41. Ms. Helton repeatedly informed the Defendant Officers that she “was
42. Ms. Helton did inform the Defendant Officers during this meeting that
43. The Defendant Officers learned that although Rick Mize did not
explicitly confess to the murder, he did tell Ms. Helton that he was aware that law-
7
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 8 of 44 - Page ID#: 8
enforcement took DNA from two different women, but that neither of them were
involved.
44. Ms. Helton also revealed to Defendant Collier that Rick Mize
threatened her repeatedly because of comments she overheard that implicated him
in the crime. In one conversation, Rick threatened with words to the effect, if “you
46. On August 27, 2012, Defendants Collier and Charles drove to the
Woodford County Detention Facility to question Cody Hall once again regarding the
47. There, Mr. Hall again maintained his belief that Mr. Miller did not
48. Mr. Hall also informed the Defendant Officers about the evening that
Rick Mize returned home with a gun and made comments about having to shoot
someone.
49. Defendants Collier and Charles learned that Mr. Mize confessed to
killing someone in Montgomery County on the evening that he returned home and
50. Again, these Defendant Officers were informed that Mr. Miller was not
8
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 9 of 44 - Page ID#: 9
Police Learn that Tasha Martin Does Not Have Any Knowledge Regarding Crime
2012. At the time, Ms. Martin was still married to Cody Hall.
52. In her initial interview, Ms. Martin informed the Defendant Officers
54. Ms. Martin agreed to provide a DNA sample for comparison as proof
Robinson.
56. In that interview, Mr. Robinson revealed that Rick Mize confessed to
57. Defendant Charles then learned that Mr. Mize provided a detailed
confession regarding the murder of Mr. Brewer. According to Mr. Robinson, Mr.
Mize revealed that a female let him into the backdoor of Mr. Brewer’s residence
58. Mr. Robinson also informed these Defendant Officers that he was
fearful that his family was in danger because of the information he knew that
9
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 10 of 44 - Page ID#: 10
Rick…you want the son-of-a-bitch running around or would you rather see him
locked up?”
60. Finally, Mr. Robinson informed Defendant Charles that Eric Bradshaw
63. In this confession, Mr. Mize informed Mr. Hawkins that a woman
64. Defendant Collier learned that Heather lived on Cat Creek Road in
implicating Rick Mize in the murder of Paul Brewer, they declined to initiate any
66. For nearly two years, the investigation into Mr. Brewer’s death sat
stagnant.
67. According to police reports, the next documented police interview was
10
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 11 of 44 - Page ID#: 11
69. In this meeting, Ms. Trent informed the Defendant Officers that the
gun used to kill Mr. Brewer was at the bottom of Chris Hall’s pond.
70. Defendants Shortridge and Charles were further informed that Chris
Cody Hall allegedly came to her house to sell a gun. After refusing to purchase the
weapon, Ms. Trent claimed that Mr. Hall got rid of the gun after failing to sell it
72. Over the course of the next several months, numerous dives were
73. None of those searches discovered any evidence relating to the murder
74. The investigation into Mr. Brewer’s death ultimately went cold.
75. By October 2015, the Defendant Officers still had not initiated charges
against anyone for the murder and were beginning to feel the pressure associated
Rick Mize, the Defendant Officers conspired to frame Plaintiff for the murder.
11
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 12 of 44 - Page ID#: 12
frame Mr. Miller and close their investigation into Mr. Brewer’s death.
78. Over the course of a single week, the Defendant Officers obtained a
79. The first false statement obtained in November of 2015 was attributed
to Kennie Helton.
81. After that meeting these Defendant Officers fabricated a police report
attributing false statements to Ms. Helton that implicated Mr. Miller in the murder
of Paul Brewer.
82. According to this false and fabricated report, Ms. Helton saw Mr.
Miller, Rick Mize, and Cody Hall return home together after doing some robberies.
The report further claims that Ms. Helton witnessed Rick Mize slap Cody Hall
before Mr. Miller placed a gun in the vent of Rick Mize’s camper.
83. Ms. Helton’s statement further claims that Rize Mize admitted to
setting up a threesome “with a guy and once they got him tied up they were going to
rob him. Something went wrong and they killed the guy.”
84. Ms. Helton has since revealed that the portions of this statement
12
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 13 of 44 - Page ID#: 13
on September 4, 2012.
86. There, Ms. Martin informed Defendant Charles that she had no first-
a scheme to pressure Natasha Martin into falsely implicating Mr. Miller in the
homicide.
89. On that date, Ms. Martin was taken to Defendant Shortridge’s office at
90. There, Defendants Shortridge and Charles interrogated Ms. Martin for
91. Over the course of several hours of questioning, Ms. Martin denied any
92. Ms. Martin likewise informed these Defendant Officers that she did
not know the victim and had never met him in her life.
13
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 14 of 44 - Page ID#: 14
Defendant John Fyffe, a polygraph examiner for the Kentucky State Police.
of their plan to obtain a statement from Ms. Martin that implicated Plaintiff and
Mr. Hall in the murder of Mr. Brewer. Defendant Fyffe agreed to assist the
95. Ms. Martin was then brought to Frankfort, Kentucky for a polygraph
97. Both during and after the polygraph examination, Ms. Martin
98. At the Defendant Officers’ behest, Defendant Fyffe refused to take Ms.
100. In the process, Defendant Fyffe provided Ms. Martin with the
information he wanted her to repeat that falsely implicated Plaintiff in the murder.
14
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 15 of 44 - Page ID#: 15
Martin’s arms, held her hands, and caressed her legs while encouraging her to
102. The photograph below depicts Defendant Fyffe holding Ms. Martin’s
Martin with the information that he wanted her to repeat that falsely implicated
104. In one sequence, Defendant Fyffe told Ms. Martin that she: “went in
there you agreed to have sex with him and put him in that vulnerable position and
put those restraints on him and then you were going to leave.” After doing so,
Defendant Fyffe promised Ms. Martin that the Defendant Officers were not
15
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 16 of 44 - Page ID#: 16
interested in charging her with murder because they just “want the person who
105. During this period of time, Defendant Fyffe caressed Ms. Martin’s arm
as he guided her through the false story that he and the other Defendant Officers
106. Later, Defendant Fyffe promised Ms. Martin that the she could go free
107. At one point, Defendant Fyffe even informed Ms. Martin that he
would be willing to testify and tell the Court that his “understanding was that the
prosecutor said she was going to walk,” so long as she agreed to go along with the
statement.
16
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 17 of 44 - Page ID#: 17
108. Nonetheless, Ms. Martin continued to maintain that she did not know
109. After a period of time, Defendant Fyffe left and Defendant Charles
110. After doing so, Defendant Charles implored Ms. Martin to implicate
Charles threatened Ms. Martin that she needed to think about “those three babies
at home.”
thereafter, Defendant Fyffe threatened to remove Ms. Martin’s children unless she
113. In turn, Ms. Martin responded to the Defendant Officers: “I can’t tell
you what I don’t know…I know nothing of this.” But the Defendant Officers refused
114. Later, when Defendant Fyffe threatened to have Ms. Martin’s children
taken away, Ms. Martin responded, “I love my kids more than anything. I want
more than anything to tell you the truth. But you don’t….do you want me to make
115. Ms. Martin did not need to make up a story as Defendant Fyffe and the
17
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 18 of 44 - Page ID#: 18
Defendant Officers Return Ms. Martin to Montgomery County to Complete Her Fabricated
Statement and False Confession
was eventually brought back to the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office for further
interrogation.
false and fabricated statement from Ms. Martin that implicated Plaintiff in the
118. Defendant Fyffe and the Defendant Officers provided Ms. Martin with
specific details to Ms. Martin about the murder and instructed her to falsely
120. After doing so, Defendant Fyffe and the Defendant Officers made
that she would never be allowed to see her kids again unless she agreed to go along
with the false and fabricated statement implicating herself, Cody Hall, and Plaintiff
121. In the end, Defendant Fyffe and the Defendant Officers successfully
fabricated a detailed statement for Ms. Martin that falsely implicated Plaintiff in
18
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 19 of 44 - Page ID#: 19
122. According to the false and fabricated statement, Ms. Martin, Mr. Hall,
and Mr. Miller drove in a Volvo to the victim’s address. The statement further
alleges that Ms. Martin and one of two girls – either Kennie Helton or Kyla Walters
– successfully misled Mr. Brewer into his bedroom before using restraints to tie him
to the bed. At that point, the statement claims that the women left the residence as
Mr. Hall and Mr. Miller entered. Finally, the statement claims that Ms. Martin
123. The false and fabricated statement further alleges that Ms. Martin,
Mr. Hall, and Mr. Miller went to the Brewer residence to commit a robbery and that
the women received approximately $340 for participating in the robbery and
124. Defendant Fyffe and the Defendant Officers knew at the time they
manufactured Ms. Martin’s statement that it was false and conflicted with the
forward with their conspiracy to frame Plaintiff for a crime he did not commit.
complaint and initiated charges against Mr. Miller for the murder and robbery of
Mr. Brewer.
127. On November 13, 2015, Defendants Collier and Charles arrested Mr.
19
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 20 of 44 - Page ID#: 20
the false and fabricated statement that Defendant Fyffe and other Defendant
129. At the time of his testimony, Defendant Charles knew that the
statement testified to before the grand-jury was false and fabricated as part of a
facts to the grand jury that he knew to be false in his effort to corroborate the
fabricated statement manufactured for Ms. Martin. In this way, Defendant Charles
falsely informed the grand jury that DNA evidence collected at the scene matched
131. At the time of his testimony, Defendant Charles knew that DNA
132. Ultimately, the grand jury issued an indictment against Plaintiff for
the murder and robbery of Paul Brewer, as well as a count of being a Persistent
Felony Offender.
133. The false and fabricated statements by Defendant Fyffe and the other
134. Defendant Fyffe and the Defendant Officers knew that the witness
statements used to initiate these charges against Mr. Miller were false, fabricated,
20
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 21 of 44 - Page ID#: 21
and the product of improper coercion. Even still, the Defendant Officers used these
135. At the time, the Defendant Officers knew that probable cause did not
exist to initiate charges against Mr. Miller. Nonetheless, the Defendant Officers
Ms. Martin.
137. In doing so, Defendant Fyffe and/or the Defendant Officers threatened
and coached these witnesses and others, and induced individuals who otherwise had
no knowledge to be false witnesses, with the result that several witnesses made
false statements about Mr. Miller and falsely implicated him in the murder of Mr.
Brewer.
prosecutors, and not Mr. Miller or his attorneys—was aware of it at the time,
the alleged evidence of guilt against Plaintiff in this case, including the false
139. Prior to the dismissal of charges against Mr. Miller, Defendant Fyffe
and/or other Defendant Officers actively concealed from Plaintiff the falsity of the
21
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 22 of 44 - Page ID#: 22
evidence they fabricated, the methods by which they fabricated, and the scope of
their fabrication.
Defendants, over the course of two years, also manipulated physical evidence,
evidence.
142. The evidence that Defendant Fyfffe and/or the other Defendant
Officers fabricated, falsified, and manufactured was the only evidence linking Mr.
Miller to the murder and was the only basis upon which prosecutors filed and
Fyffe and the other Defendant Officers, over the course of two years, concealed from
Mr. Miller and his defense counsel both the falsity of the witness statements and
the unlawful methods by which they procured and fabricated this evidence.
Defendant Officers, over the course of more than two years, withheld, concealed, or
destroyed material exculpatory evidence, keeping that evidence from the court, Mr.
22
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 23 of 44 - Page ID#: 23
145. The Defendant Officers continued this misconduct even after the
initiation of charges against Mr. Miller. They did so through coercion and promises
of consideration.
The Defendant Officers Also Initiate Charges Against Cody Hall and Natasha Martin
Based on the False and Fabricated Evidence Described Above
and initiated charges against Natasha Martin and Cody Hall for the murder and
the false and fabricated statement that he and Defendant Shortridge obtained from
indictments against Mr. Hall and Ms. Martin for the robbery and murder of Paul
Brewer.
149. As a result of those indictments, both Cody Hall and Natasha Martin
150. The initiation of these false charges ultimately violated Mr. Hall’s
parole.
151. On October 19, 2016, the Commonwealth dismissed all charges against
152. Even still, Mr. Hall remains incarcerated in the Kentucky Department
of Corrections because the initiation of charges for the murder and robbery of Paul
23
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 24 of 44 - Page ID#: 24
153. Cody Hall and Natasha Martin were married at the time they were
charged with the murder of Paul Brewer. Mr. Hall and Ms. Martin have at least
154. After being charged with the murder and robbery of Paul Brewer, Mr.
Hall and Ms. Martin regularly exchanged correspondence with one another
implicating Plaintiff in the murder and robbery of Mr. Brewer were false.
156. In this correspondence, Ms. Martin revealed that she was forced to lie
Plaintiff was innocent of the charges and that Ms. Martin was forced to go along
158. Mr. Hall’s correspondence to Ms. Martin also confirmed that neither he
nor Plaintiff had anything to do with the murder of Paul Brewer and that the
24
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 25 of 44 - Page ID#: 25
Defense Team Obtains Ex Parte Court Order for Exculpatory Physical Evidence
159. Mr. Miller’s defense team ultimately sought to obtain the exculpatory
160. To ensure the integrity of the evidence, Mr. Miller’s defense team made
an ex parte motion in June of 2017 for exculpatory documentary evidence from Cody
161. On June 15, 2017, the Hon. William Lane, a Montgomery County
Circuit Court judge, issued a sealed order requiring that “upon presentation of this
Order to any and all personnel of the Montgomery County Detention Center, said
personnel shall immediately go to Natasha Martin and retrieve from her all
correspondence, letters and emails written to her [or] by her to Co-defendant Cody
Hall, and same shall be produced to the investigator of the Nicki Miller Defense
162. Since that order was ex parte, the only persons privy to the order were
Court staff, the defense team, and the prosecution team assigned to the case.
163. Defendant Craycraft was one of the limited individuals privy to the
164. On June 15, 2017, at approximately 11:48 a.m., an investigator for the
defense team, Joshua Powell, arrived at the Montgomery County Regional Jail with
25
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 26 of 44 - Page ID#: 26
165. After arriving at the jail, Mr. Powell engaged in a conversation with
166. Mr. Powell informed Ms. Osbourne of the court order and requested
167. Ms. Osbourne informed Mr. Powell, however, that Ms. Martin was
168. Although the court order was ex parte, telephone records reveal that an
employee of the Montgomery County Regional Jail called Ms. Martin at noon on
169. In that call, Ms. Martin was informed that an investigator was at the
Montgomery Regional Jail to retrieve her letters and correspondence via court
order.
Aware That Probable Cause Was Absent Against Plaintiff, Defendant Craycraft
Participated in the Destruction of Physical Exculpatory Evidence
170. After learning about this Court order, Ms. Martin sought advice from
171. Mr. Craycraft was made aware that the correspondence maintained by
evidence in her possession. Defendant Craycraft did so despite the court order and
being aware that Mr. Miller had requested that any correspondence from Ms.
26
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 27 of 44 - Page ID#: 27
173. By doing this, Defendant Craycraft was well aware that he was
removing the most critical and probative evidence remaining in the case –
communication from Cody Hall and Natasha Martin revealing that Plaintiff was
innocent and that Ms. Martin’s statements were fabricated, false, and a product of
174. Based on her communication with Mr. Craycraft, Ms. Martin destroyed
aware that probable cause did not exist for the pending charges against Mr. Miller
aware that Ms. Martin’s statement implicating Mr. Miller was false, fabricated, and
misconduct, he was aware that no credible evidence existed that implicated Mr.
Miller in the Brewer homicide, yet, he facilitated the destruction of the exculpatory
telephone records.
27
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 28 of 44 - Page ID#: 28
179. Telephone records reveal that Mr. Craycraft and Ms. Martin
participated in a series of phone calls throughout the afternoon of June 16, 2017.
180. The first call on June 16, 2017 between Mr. Craycraft and Ms. Martin
occurred at approximately 2:11 p.m. In that conversation, Ms. Martin called Mr.
181. An hour later, at 3:18 p.m., Mr. Craycraft called Natasha Martin from
his personal cellphone. In that call, Mr. Craycraft and Ms. Martin spoke for
approximately 8 seconds.
182. Apparently having lost service, Mr. Craycraft called Ms. Martin again
from his personal cellphone at 3:18 p.m. That call lasted for approximately 9
seconds.
183. At 5:03 p.m., Ms. Martin called Mr. Craycraft’s personal cellphone once
again. This time, Ms. Martin and Mr. Craycraft speak for more than ten minutes.
184. By the evening of June 16, 2017, the physical exculpatory evidence
185. At 8:52 p.m., Cody Hall placed a recorded call to Ms. Martin. In that
call, Ms. Martin revealed to Mr. Hall that the defense team “subpoenaed your mail
and my mail…I guess she went up to the Montgomery County Jail today to get mine
and I wasn’t there, so you know she threw ten kinds of hell, because my friend
28
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 29 of 44 - Page ID#: 29
186. Mr. Hall then asked Ms. Martin where her letters were located. In
response, Ms. Martin revealed: “Not here. I got rid of it. It’s burnt.”
187. Mr. Hall revealed the exculpatory nature of the letters destroyed by
Ms. Martin. In those letters, it was revealed that Ms. Martin’s statement was false,
189. Beginning on June 16, 2017 and lasting each and every day until the
dismissal of charges on November 21, 2017, Plaintiff suffered the agony of facing a
191. Defendant Eric Jones was the Jailer of the Montgomery County
192. As Jailer, Defendant Jones had regular contact with Ms. Martin, a
29
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 30 of 44 - Page ID#: 30
193. Defendant Jones also engaged in regular contact with the Defendant
the Defendant Officers intended to frame Plaintiff for the murder of Paul Brewer.
194. Defendant Jones further learned that Ms. Martin was the key to the
195. After discovering this, Defendant Jones joined the Defendant Officers
197. For instance, Defendant Jones promised Ms. Martin that he would
198. Defendant Jones also had discussions with Defendant Craycraft about
Ms. Martin’s release on an unsecured bond from the Montgomery County Regional
Martin at the Montgomery Regional Jail, Defendant Jones “said anything done on
30
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 31 of 44 - Page ID#: 31
201. In another call, a friend revealed the extent of assistance Ms. Martin
received, “Eric Jones has done more to help you than that man [her attorney] ever
has.”
202. For nearly two years the Defendant Officers contrived to frame Mr.
Miller for the murder of Mr. Brewer and deprived him of his freedom without due
process of law.
Order dismissing all charges against Mr. Miller relating to the death of Paul
205. On that date, after spending nearly two years in the Montgomery
County Regional Jail, Mr. Miller was finally released into the loving arms of his
206. Nickie Miller spent nearly two years incarcerated in the county jail,
under the threat of capital punishment, for a crime he did not commit. He must
now attempt to make a life for himself without the benefit of nearly two years’
207. Additionally, the emotional pain and suffering caused by losing those
years has been substantial. During his incarceration, he was stripped of the
31
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 32 of 44 - Page ID#: 32
various pleasures of basic human experience, from the simplest to the most
important, which all free people enjoy as a matter of right. Mr. Miller missed out on
the ability to share holidays, births, funerals, and other life events with loved ones,
the opportunity to fall in love, to marry, and the fundamental freedom to live one’s
damage, including but not limited to physical harm, mental suffering, and loss of a
210. As described more fully above, Defendant Jones, Defendant Fyffe, and
all of the Defendant Officers, while acting individually, jointly and in conspiracy, as
well as under color of law and within the scope of their employment, deprived Mr.
Miller of his constitutional right to be free from unlawful prosecution and continued
Defendant Fyffe, and all of the Defendant Officers made, influenced and/or
participated in the decision to prosecute Mr. Miller, for which prosecution there was
no probable cause and which caused Mr. Miller to suffer a deprivation of liberty.
impeachment evidence.
32
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 33 of 44 - Page ID#: 33
212. As described more fully above, the prosecution was resolved in Mr.
Miller’s favor.
213. Defendant Jones, Defendant Fyffe, and all of the Defendant Officers’
suffered injuries, including but not limited to bodily harm and emotional distress,
215. Defendant Jones, Defendant Fyffe, and all of the Defendant Officers’
constitutional rights.
investigations and coerced evidence. In this way, the municipal defendants violated
Mr. Miller’s rights by maintaining policies and practices that were the moving force
policy in the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office were able to exist and thrive
33
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 34 of 44 - Page ID#: 34
220. In the manner described more fully above, Defendant Fyffe and the
and other pretrial proceedings. Defendant Fyffe and the Defendant Officers
knowingly fabricated this evidence and a reasonable likelihood exists that the false
evidence affected the decision of the grand jurors and courts that considered this
221. Defendant Fyffe and the Defendant Officers were acting under color of
law and within their scope of employment when they took these actions.
resulted in the unjust continued incarceration of Mr. Miller, thereby denying him
from his constitutional right to due process as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
Absent this misconduct, there would have been no probable cause for Plaintiff’s
continued detention, and the prosecution of Plaintiff could not and would not have
been pursued.
34
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 35 of 44 - Page ID#: 35
223. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Fyffe and the Defendant
Officers’ actions, Mr. Miller’s constitutional rights were violated and he suffered
from injuries and damages, including but not limited to the loss of liberty, physical
sickness and injury, emotional pain and suffering, and other grievous and
fully herein.
aware that probable cause did not exist for the pending charges against Mr. Miller
aware that Ms. Martin’s statement implicating Mr. Miller was false, fabricated, and
Craycraft prior to its destruction. In the alternative, the evidence was potentially
35
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 36 of 44 - Page ID#: 36
230. At the time of this destruction, Defendant Craycraft was aware that a
Court order had been issued requiring the preservation and disclosure of the
Plaintiff suffered injuries, including but not limited to emotional distress more fully
alleged above.
Plaintiff suffered continued detention and prosecution for a crime that the
constitutional rights.
and agents of the County of Montgomery, including but not limited to the
fully described above. This includes but is not limited to destroying evidence to
36
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 37 of 44 - Page ID#: 37
the case against Plaintiff and knew or, in the absence of their deliberate
methods used by law enforcement agencies. The fact that the defendant supervisors
failed to train and supervise their subordinates to ensure that they employed proper
37
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 38 of 44 - Page ID#: 38
deprivations and grievous personal injuries suffered by Mr. Miller, including the
described above, Defendant Fyffe, Defendant Jones and one or more of the
and was undertaken intentionally and with willful indifference to Mr. Miller’s
rights.
the policy and practice of the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office in the manner
38
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 39 of 44 - Page ID#: 39
248. After Mr. Brewer was murdered, Defendant Fyffe, Defendant Jones’
Mr. Miller for the crimes, and to thereby deprive him of his constitutional rights
and his liberty to be continuously taken away from him, all as described in the
249. In this manner, Defendant Fyffe, Defendant Jones’ and the Defendant
referenced above, Mr. Miller’s constitutional rights were violated, and he suffered
252. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken with malice,
the policies and practices of the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office in the manner
39
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 40 of 44 - Page ID#: 40
exculpatory information from Mr. Miller and their counsel were undertaken
pursuant to the policies and practices of the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office, as
described above, which were ratified by policymakers for the Montgomery County
included the failure to adequately train, supervise, and discipline officers on the
256. The policies and practices described in this Count were maintained
40
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 41 of 44 - Page ID#: 41
Jones and the Defendant Officers caused Mr. Miller to be improperly subjected to a
prosecution for which there was no probable cause. These judicial proceedings were
instituted and continued maliciously, resulting in injury, and all such proceedings
were ultimately terminated in Mr. Miller’s favor and in a manner indicative of his
innocence.
261. Defendant Fyffe, Defendant Jones and the Defendant Officers accused
probable cause; fabricated evidence and withheld the manner in which that
evidence was fabricated; and made statements and reports to the police and/or
prosecutors with the intent of exerting influence to institute and continue the
judicial proceedings.
262. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken with malice,
bad faith, and in a wanton and reckless manner, and was undertaken by Defendant
Fyffe, Defendant Jones, and the Defendant Officers within the scope of their
bodily harm and emotional pain and suffering as more fully alleged above.
41
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 42 of 44 - Page ID#: 42
including Defendant Shortridge, had a duty to properly train and supervise officers,
and to provide adequate policies to prevent the above conduct, including fabricating
evidence.
grossly negligent and negligent in the training, supervision and discipline of the
Defendant Officers, resulting in Mr. Miller being deprived of his right to due
process, and his right to be free from false arrest, false imprisonment, and wrongful
conviction.
bodily harm and emotional pain and suffering as more fully alleged above.
Count X
Respondeat Superior
fully herein.
42
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 43 of 44 - Page ID#: 43
the Defendant Officers were members and agents of the Montgomery County
Sheriff’s Office, acting at all relevant times within the scope of their employment.
Office, acting at all relevant times within the scope of his employment.
271. Defendant Montgomery County is liable as principals for all state law
Examiner, JOHN FYFFE, and other unknown officers from the Montgomery
compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs against each Defendant, and
punitive damages against each of the individual Defendants, as well as any other
43
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 44 of 44 - Page ID#: 44
JURY DEMAND
Respectfully submitted,
44
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 1 of 1 - Page ID#: 45
JS 44 (Rev. 06/17) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
’ 1 U.S. Government ’ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State ’ 1 ’ 1 Incorporated or Principal Place ’ 4 ’ 4
of Business In This State
’ 2 U.S. Government ’ 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State ’ 2 ’ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place ’ 5 ’ 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
NICKIE MILLER )
)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, et al )
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are: Elliot Slosar
Loevy & Loevy
311 N. Aberdeen, 3rd FL
Chicago, IL 60607
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1-2 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 2 of 2 - Page ID#: 47
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
u I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or
u Other (specify):
.
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ 0.00 .
Date:
Server’s signature
Server’s address
NICKIE MILLER )
)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, et al )
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are: Elliot Slosar
Loevy & Loevy
311 N. Aberdeen, 3rd FL
Chicago, IL 60607
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1-3 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 2 of 2 - Page ID#: 49
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
u I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or
u Other (specify):
.
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ 0.00 .
Date:
Server’s signature
Server’s address
NICKIE MILLER )
)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, et al )
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are: Elliot Slosar
Loevy & Loevy
311 N. Aberdeen, 3rd FL
Chicago, IL 60607
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1-4 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 2 of 2 - Page ID#: 51
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
u I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or
u Other (specify):
.
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ 0.00 .
Date:
Server’s signature
Server’s address
NICKIE MILLER )
)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, et al )
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are: Elliot Slosar
Loevy & Loevy
311 N. Aberdeen, 3rd FL
Chicago, IL 60607
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1-5 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 2 of 2 - Page ID#: 53
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
u I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or
u Other (specify):
.
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ 0.00 .
Date:
Server’s signature
Server’s address
NICKIE MILLER )
)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, et al )
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are: Elliot Slosar
Loevy & Loevy
311 N. Aberdeen, 3rd FL
Chicago, IL 60607
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1-6 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 2 of 2 - Page ID#: 55
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
u I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or
u Other (specify):
.
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ 0.00 .
Date:
Server’s signature
Server’s address
NICKIE MILLER )
)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, et al )
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are: Elliot Slosar
Loevy & Loevy
311 N. Aberdeen, 3rd FL
Chicago, IL 60607
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1-7 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 2 of 2 - Page ID#: 57
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
u I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or
u Other (specify):
.
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ 0.00 .
Date:
Server’s signature
Server’s address
NICKIE MILLER )
)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, et al )
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are: Elliot Slosar
Loevy & Loevy
311 N. Aberdeen, 3rd FL
Chicago, IL 60607
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
Case: 5:18-cv-00619-DCR Doc #: 1-8 Filed: 11/20/18 Page: 2 of 2 - Page ID#: 59
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
u I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or
u Other (specify):
.
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ 0.00 .
Date:
Server’s signature
Server’s address