In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, London Division
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Case: 6:17-cv-00084-REW-HAI Doc #: 204 Filed: 07/31/19 Page: 1 of 230 - Page ID#: 14998 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY, LONDON DIVISION AMANDA HOSKINS and JONATHAN ) TAYLOR, ) ) Case No. 17-CV-84 Plaintiffs, ) ) Hon. ROBERT E. WEIR v. ) ) Mag. HANLY A. INGRAM KNOX COUNTY, ET AL., ) ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ CONSOLIDATED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Case: 6:17-cv-00084-REW-HAI Doc #: 204 Filed: 07/31/19 Page: 2 of 230 - Page ID#: 14999 TABLE OF CONTENTS – STATEMENT OF FACTS I. PLAINTIFFS ARE INNOCENT .........................................................................................5 A. Plaintiff Amanda Hoskins Did Not Know Katherine Mills and Is Completely Innocent .........................................................................................................................5 B. Plaintiff Jonathan Taylor, too, Did Not Know The Victim and Is Completely Innocent..........................................................................................................................6 C. Due to the Absence of Probable Cause, the Knox County Commonwealth Attorney Dismissed Plaintiffs’ Criminal Charges.........................................................................8 D. The Physical Evidence at the Crime Scene Corroborates the Plaintiffs’ Innocence, Yet Defendant York Did Nothing to Stop Their Wrongful Prosecution ..............................9 II. THE MURDER OF KATHERINE MILLS .......................................................................10 A. Katherine Mills Was Discovered Dead In The Early Evening Hours of December 20, 2010 ......................................................................................................10 B. Defendants’ Roles in Investigation ..............................................................................10 III. DEFENDANTS’ ILLEGAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE MILLS’ HOMICIDE........12 A. The Immediate Investigation of Mills’ Homicide Reveals a Possible Eyewitness .....12 B. Mike Simpson and Allen Helton Are Obvious Suspects in Mills’ Death ....................12 C. Defendants’ Incomplete and Failed Investigation of Mike Simpson, Allen Helton, and Jesse Lawson Transforms into a Conspiracy to Frame Plaintiffs .........................14 i. Defendants Learn that Helton and Simpson Were Broke Prior to Mills’ Death, Possessed a Blue Vehicle, Paid Bills with Cash, and Fled to Florida After Murder.................................................................................................................14 ii. Defendant York Questioned Helton On December 23, 2010 After His Return to Kentucky .............................................................................................................15 iii. Defendants York, Mefford, and Broughton Question Helton Regarding Mills’ Homicide on January 4, 2011 .............................................................................16 iv. Defendant York Initiates Charges Against Helton on January 4, 2011 After Questioning Him for Mills’ Murder ...................................................................17 v. Defendant York Threatens Jesse Lawson During Investigation .........................17 i Case: 6:17-cv-00084-REW-HAI Doc #: 204 Filed: 07/31/19 Page: 3 of 230 - Page ID#: 15000 vi. Helton and Lawson’s Failed Polygraph Examinations Lead to Defendants’ Plot to Frame Plaintiffs for Mills’ Murder .......................................................18 vii. Defendant York Feeds Information to Helton After Polygraph Examination In Attempt to Fabricate Statement .......................................................................20 viii. Targeting His Then Suspects, Defendant York Falsifies Information in Multiple Search Warrant Affidavits .................................................................21 ix. After Helton and Lawson Fail Polygraph Examinations, Defendants Decline to Conduct any Further Investigation and Use Lawson as a Confidential Informant in Ongoing Investigations ..........................................22 IV. DEFENDANT BROUGHTON FAILS TO INTERVENE AS DEFENDANT YORK THREATENS TO FRAME PLAINTIFF ON FEBRUARY 15, 2011 ..............................23 V. DEFENDANTS MAKE PROMISES OF CONSIDERATION AND THREATS OF COERCION TO FABRICATE FALSE EVIDENCE IMPLICATING PLAINTIFFS IN MILLS’ DEATH ................................................................................................................25 A. Defendants York and Pickard Switch Suspects, Make Promises of Consideration, and Fabricate Helton’s March 2012 Statement ..................................................................25 B. Detective York Tampers with Ms. Hoskins’ Medical Records to Support Fabricated Statement from Allen Helton .......................................................................................28 C. Detective York Fabricates Christy Branson’s May 16, 2011 Statement .....................30 D. Detective York Fabricates Joe King’s June 24, 2011 Statement .................................31 E. Detective York Fabricates Amber Simpson’s March 13, 2012 Statement ..................33 F. Sheriff Pickard and Detective York Fabricate Kayla Mills’ Statement .......................36 i. Defendants Pickard and York Coerce and Feed Information To Kayla To Fabricate Her False Statement Against Plaintiffs ...............................................36 ii. Defendant York Initiates Charges Against Kayla Mills For Murder Without Notifying the Commonwealth Attorney’s Office ...............................................38 iii. Defendant York Sets Deadline For Kayla Mills To Regurgitate Defendants’ Fabricated Statement ...........................................................................................39 iv. Defendant York Strikes Undisclosed Deal With Kayla Mills In Exchange For Fabricated Statement ...........................................................................................40 ii Case: 6:17-cv-00084-REW-HAI Doc #: 204 Filed: 07/31/19 Page: 4 of 230 - Page ID#: 15001 G. Detectives York and Mefford Fabricate Daniel Wilson’s July 18, 2012 Statement ....42 i. Defendant Mefford Was Present During the Fabrication of Wilson’s Statement, Did Nothing to Intervene, and Failed to Document the Fabrication and Promises of Consideration ..................................................................................................43 VI. DEFENDANTS YORK, BROUGHTON, AND PICKARD FACILITATE UNDULY SUGGESTIVE IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE TO FRAME PLAINTIFFS .............45 A. Defendant York is Present When Sketch is Made .......................................................45 B. Defendants York, Pickard, and Broughton Interrogate Plaintiff Taylor for the Mills’ Murder..........................................................................................................................45 C. Defendants York, Pickard, and Broughton Facilitate Unduly Suggestive Show-up of Plaintiff Jonathan Taylor ..............................................................................................46 D. Defendant Broughton Admits to Assisting Defendant York by Photographing Plaintiff Taylor .............................................................................................................48 E. Defendants York, Pickard, and Broughton Discuss Conspiracy to Frame Plaintiff ....49 F. Defendant York Reveals for the First Time in this Case That He Conducted Photographic Show-Up of Plaintiff Taylor and Declined To Document The Failed Identification Attempt ..................................................................................................50 G. The Commonwealth’s Attorney Was Never Informed of Defendants’ Plan To Conduct Suggestive Photo-Identification Procedure ...................................................51 H. PLAINTIFFS’ EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION EXPERT ...................................51 VII. BASED ON FALSE AND FABRICATED EVIDENCE, DEFENDANT YORK INITIATES CHARGES AGAINST PLAINTIFFS THROUGH CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS ..................................................................................................................52 A. Defendant York Initiates Charges Against Plaintiff Hoskins While Admitting That He Knew She Was Not Involved in Crime ........................................................................52 B. Defendant York Initiates Charges Against Plaintiff Taylor, Then Threatens Him .....53 VIII. DEFENDANT YORK PRESENTS FABRICATED EVIDENCE AT PRELIMINARY HEARING..........................................................................................................................53 A. Defendants’ Fabricated Statements Introduced at Preliminary Hearing ......................54 iii Case: 6:17-cv-00084-REW-HAI Doc #: 204 Filed: 07/31/19 Page: 5 of 230 - Page ID#: 15002 IX. DEFENDANT YORK TESTIFIES FALSELY WHILE PRESENTING DEFENDANTS’ FABRICATED EVIDENCE TO GRAND JURY .............................................................55 A. Defendants’ Fabricated Statements Introduced to Grand Jury ....................................56 B. Defendant York Testifies Falsely Before Grand-Jury .................................................57 i. Defendant York Falsely Testified that Hoskins and Taylor Knew Victim .........57 ii. Defendant York Falsely Testified that Lester Was on Run ................................58 iii. Defendant York Falsely Testified That Ms. Hoskins Claimed to be at Doctor Earlier in the Morning .........................................................................................58