Defendant's Attorney: Jon Mark Stewart, Norman Ray Giles, William S. Helfand for Cheyenne

John H. Ridge, Timothy W. Miller, and Samuel Lee Williams Lance Cooper Overstreet, Administrator of the Estate of George W. Stanford, et al.

Description: Cheyenne, Wyoming personal injury lawyers represented the Plaintiff who sued the Defendants on civil rights violation theories claiming he was wrongfully convicted and imprison for a crime he did not commit.

1. Andrew J. Johnson ("Plaintiff or "Mr. Johnson"), now 67 years old, was
imprisoned for nearly twenty-four (24) years for crimes he did not commit. In September 1989,
he was tried and convicted of aggravated burglary and first degree sexual assault of Laurie Slagle
("Ms. Slagle"), a 24-year-old Caucasian woman, in an apartment in Cheyenne, Wyoming. The
case was Wyoming v.Johnson (Docket No. 19-373, Wyo. Dist. Ct. First Judicial District), affd
sub nom. Johnson v. State, 806 P.2d 1282 (Wyo. 1991). At the time, DNA analysis ofrape kit
biological samples was in its infancy and not meaningfully available to Mr. Johnson for use in
his defense.

2. More than two decades later and with the aid ofthe Rocky Mountain Innocence
Center, Mr. Johnson was the first prisoner to use Wyoming's newly enacted DNA testing statute,
W.S. § 7-l2-303(b), to present compelling and conclusive new evidence of his innocence, to
have his convictions set aside, and to regain his freedom. In early 2013, the Wyoming State
Crime Lab determined that the seminal fluids samples from Ms. Slagle's rape kit did not match
Mr. Johnson's DNA. He was declared actually innocent by Court Order dated August 7, 2013.
The new evidence affirmatively showed that the actual perpetrator was Ms. Slagle's purported
fiance or boyfriend, Barney Haggberg ("Mr. Haggberg"), a 33-year-old Caucasian male, whose
DNA matched Ms. Slagle's sexual assault kit seminal fluid samples.

3. Ms. Slagle was prompted or encouraged by one or more law enforcement officers
to say, and did say, Mr. Johnson sexually assaulted her in the apartment she shared with Mr.
Haggberg at that time.

4. At that time, the Cheyenne Police Department ("CPD") failed to have in place
and/or to monitor and enforce any customs, policies, procedures, or practices to document, log,
and effectively preserve all first-responder crime scene photos and other forensic photos, thereby

2

Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial

Case 2:17-cv-00074-SWS Document 1 Filed 04/17/17 Page 2 of 37

allowing and causing one or more ofits personnel to launder and suppress some crime scene film
and photos taken by one ofthe crime scene original responders, CPD officer Phillip Raybuck
(badge # P-8) ("Officer Raybuck"). Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges,
that a full set ofthe crime scene photos would have tended at trial to show Ms. Slagle was lying,
or at least not credible, and that other testifying CPD officers were not credible.
5. The CPD's failure in regard to police crime scene forensic photograph handling,
processing and safe-keeping allowed either CPD's detective George W. ("Bill") Stanford (badge
# D-2) ("Detective Stanford") and/or CPD's patrolman Alan Wade Spencer (badge # P-46)
("Defendant Spencer" or "Patrolman Spencer") who was the other crime scene first-responder,
and/or other CPD DOE defendants whose names are presently unknown, to violate Mr.
Johnson's constitutional right(s) to full disclosure of material exculpatory or impeaching,
apparent exculpatory or impeaching, and/or potentially useful photographic evidence obtained by
CPD.

6. It is presently unknown whether the missing negative film and/or missing
photograph prints therefrom have been misplaced, purposely or inadvertently destroyed,
purposely or carelessly sequestered, lost, or something else improperly done with this forensic
evidence, or some ofit, by defendants or by one or more ofthem.

7. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that CPD and one or
more ofits personnel failed to provide to the prosecutor and to Plaintiffs criminal trial counsel
photographic crime scene evidence which was materially exculpatory or impeaching, apparently
exculpatory or impeaching, and/or potentially exculpatory or impeaching in violation of
Plaintiffs Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution. Other
constitutional violations also occurred from other unlawful conduct.

3

Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial

Case 2:17-cv-00074-SWS Document 1 Filed 04/17/17 Page 3 of 37

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. The jurisdiction ofthis Court over the subject matter ofthis action is predicated
on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1343; and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

9. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2) because a substantial part ofthe
events or omissions giving rise to the claims herein occurred in Wyoming.


10. Mr. Johnson's federal claims arise under the United States Constitution, and at
least the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments thereto, and under federal law, including but not
limited to the Federal Civil Rights Act, Title 42 ofthe United States Code, §§ 1983 & 1988. The
acts and omissions of defendants and others as alleged herein were committed by defendants and
others, and each ofthem, under color and pretense ofthe Constitution, statutes, ordinances, rules,
regulations, practices, customs, patterns, and usages ofthe State of Wyoming and/or ofthe
County or City referenced herein.

III. THE PARTIES

11. Raised in Cheyenne since age five, Mr. Johnson, who is African-American, was at
all relevant times a United States citizen and a resident ofLaramie County, Wyoming.

12. Defendant City ofCheyenne ("City" or "Defendant City") was at all relevant
times a public entity, a chartered "first class city" ofWyoming, and a municipal corporation
located in Laramie County, Wyoming. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis
alleges, that CPD is an unincorporated departmentof DefendantCity and that at all relevant
times CPD was authorized to act for, and did act for and on behalf of. Defendant City. CPD was
and is City's principal criminal law enforcement agency. At all relevant times, CPD was
responsible for providing sworn peace officer services to the people of DefendantCity. At all
relevant times. Defendant City delegated to CPD all policymaking authority regarding CPD

4

Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial

Case 2:17-cv-00074-SWS Document 1 Filed 04/17/17 Page 4 of 37

practices and procedures for criminal law enforcement for the City and further delegated to CPD
all or major responsibility for the training and supervision ofCPD personnel.

13. DOE I is or was the personal representative ofthe estate of Detective Stanford
who passed away on or about August 13, 2007. Insofar as Plaintiff would have named Detective
Stanford, were he still alive, as a defendant in this action in his individual capacity. Plaintiff
hereby sues DOE 1 in his or her representative capacity instead of and in place of Detective
Stanford.

14. At all relevant times. Defendant Spencer was a CPD peace officer employed by
Defendant City. As of September 1989, when he was called by the prosecutor and testified
under oath in Mr. Johnson's criminal case, Defendant Spencer had been a CPD peace officer for
approximately four and a half years. Defendant Spencer is sued in his individual capacity.

15. DOES 2 through 20, inclusive, are other individuals or entities responsible in
some way for the deprivation offederal rights and the unlawful actions or inactions injuring
Plaintiff as complained of herein. In most instances, the names and capacities ofthese DOE
defendants are presently unknown to Plaintiff. In several instances Plaintiff is aware ofthe name
or capacity ofsuch DOEdefendant, but Plaintiffbelieveshe presently possesses insufficient
information to reasonably justify suing such person or entity as a named defendant. Therefore, at
this time, Plaintiffsues these defendants under fictitious names, DOES 2 through 20, inclusive,
and will amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained and
appropriate.

16. Except where otherwise noted, defendants who are natural persons, and each of
them, engaged in the acts and conduct complained of herein while within the course and scope of
their agency or employment by or for Defendant City, or by or for a department or office or
5
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial
Case 2:17-cv-00074-SWS Document 1 Filed 04/17/17 Page 5 of 37
agency ofCity, or otherwise were acting for or on behalf of Defendant City, or one of its
departments or offices or agencies, or other departments or offices or agencies of Laramie
County, Wyoming, or the State of Wyoming, and under color ofstate law in doing or not doing
the things complained of herein.

IV. FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

A. The 911 Call.

17. On Sunday, June 11, 1989, shortly before 3:19 a.m., a CPD dispatcher received a
911 call from Julia Prodis ("Ms. Prodis"), who occupied the 2nd floor apartment in the 3-story
house at 515 E. 18th Street (the "House") in Cheyenne. Sometime in the past, the House had
been converted into four apartments. In June 1989, Mr. Haggberg and Ms. Slagle rented the 3rd
floor apartment ("Attic Apartment"), which was accessed by a ground-level doorway on the
House front-right side. This doorway gave way to an interior staircase leading to a 2nd floor
landing where a second door with a large window pane and lock ("Landing Door") accessed
steep stairs directly into the Attic Apartment. The Attic Apartment address was 513 E. 18th
Street.

18. Ms. Prodis had been awakened by very aggressive, loud knocking she heard on
the Landing Door to the Attic Apartment. The door pounding stopped and started approximately
six (6) times over the course of approximately 10 minutes. Then Ms. Prodis heard the crashing
sound of broken glass, footsteps crossing broken glass, and someone going upstairs to the Attic
Apartment. The footsteps immediately above her sounded as ifsomeone was going from one
room to another in the Attic Apartment. Eventually, Ms. Prodis heard above her a woman's
muffled, high-pitched scream sounding something like "no, no!" Ms. Prodis heard no words
spoken by the intruder.

6

Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial

Case 2:17-cv-00074-SWS Document 1 Filed 04/17/17 Page 6 of 37

19. Upon hearing the scream, Ms. Prodis immediately called 911, seeking police
assistance. She was still on the phone with the CPD dispatcher when she heard the intruder
walking down the Attic Apartment stairs, over broken glass, and apparently out the ground-floor
door ofthe Attic Apartment. Ms. Prodis testified at Mr. Johnson's criminal trial that she
estimated that the intruder was in the Attic Apartment less than ten minutes and that she never
saw the intruder. Ms. Prodis also estimated that the police arrived less than a minute after the
intruder had left.

B. The Police First-Responders' Initial Actions.

20. At 3:19 a.m. Sunday June 11, 1989, CPD dispatched Patrolman Spencer to the
House. At 3:21 a.m., CPD also dispatched Officer Raybuck to backup Patrolman Spencer.
Officer Raybuck arrived first. He reported that he entered through the House's ground floor door
leading upto the Attic Apartment, and when hegottothe stairwell's 2"'* floor landing, he
observed that the Landing Door "had been broken and was standing ajar." He then proceeded up
the stairway to the 3^^^ floor, and nearing the top, yelled: "Police anyone here?" Atthatmoment.
Defendant Spencer arrived, and Officer Raybuck subsequently reported: "[W]e entered the
[Attic] [AJpartment, the bathroom door opened partway and we heard a woman sobbing 'is he
gone? is hegone?'"'

21. Defendant Spencer testified at Mr. Johnson's criminal trial that he and Officer
Raybuck had drawn their guns by the time theygot to the top of the AtticApartment stairs. No
indoorlights were on. He stated aloud that they were police officersand asked: "Is anybody in
the house?" No response came at that time. Standing at the top ofthe Attic Apartmentstairs.
Patrolman Spencer could see a doorway, approximately five feet to the right from the top ofthe
' Officer Raybuck was not called to testify at Mr. Johnson's criminal trial.

7

Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial

Case 2:17-cv-00074-SWS Document 1 Filed 04/17/17 Page 7 of 37

stairs, cracked open with a light on. He could hear the person behind the door ''whimpering and
muffled yells and hysterics." "We asked that person to come out several times. At times we
didn't get no response. At other times we just heard screaming and yelling." Then Defendant
Spencer testified that he determined the person behind the door was saying: "Is he still here? Is
he still here?" Spencer further testified: "To me that gave indications that there might be
somebody else still in the area. Since it was in the bathroom, I had a good idea they weren't
coming out. [Turning on apartment lights], [m]yself and Officer Raybuck searched the apartment
at that time, him going over one end and 1the other. We went through the house, checking any
space that a person could be hiding."

22. Under questioning by the prosecutor, Defendant Spencer testified:

Q. What rooms did you go into?

A. Down the hallway. Officer Raybuck at that time went through the
bedroom, I went into the living room and came back (emphasis added).
There's a room over, across from the hallway, a study ofsome type.
Officer Raybuck came back through and we went in the kitchen there and
went back towards the bathroom.

23. Defendant Spencer's testimony continued: "And at that time we went back to the
bathroom, [I] stated that there was nobody in there, 'You can open the door.' She had peered
out, and she had seen it was police officers, and we started talking to her from there." "I was
getting bits and pieces. She had stated that 'He had hurt me. He hurt me.' I asked her, 'Who hurt
you?... She had opened the door, but she hadn't come out all the way... Physically, her hair was
mussed. She was wearing a robe that tied. It was half undone. I could see that her eyes were wet
and red."

24. The prosecutor's questioning of Patrolman Spencer and his answers continued:

8

Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial

Case 2:17-cv-00074-SWS Document 1 Filed 04/17/17 Page 8 of 37

Q. Now, you asked her who it was - when she said "He hurt me," you
asked "Who hurt you?"; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Did she respond to you?

A. Yes, she did.

Q. Who did she say hurt her?

A. She said, "A.J."

Q. Did you press her for further details, further explanation as to who this
"A.J." was?

A. I'd asked her, "What is his last name?", and she said she didn't know
his last name.

Q. What next happened as you are trying to talk with her in the doorway,
to find out what happened?

A. As I was talking to her, I had glanced down on the ground, right there
at my feet I noticed a driver's license or an identification card in a plastictype container. 1then reached down and picked it up. On one side there was an identification card. There was also, I think, a driver's license in
there. It was a picture I.D., ofthat type. I looked at the card and it said
Andrew J. Johnson on it. I held it, and as 1 held it I showed it to her and
asked, "Isthis the A.J. that you're talking about?"^

Q. Did she respond to you?

A. Her response - at first she didn't say anything, she just went back into
hysterics when she looked at the picture. Eventually she shook her head,
and I asked her again, and she said, "Yes, that's A.J."

25. In truth, on the living room coffee table in the Attic Apartment the evening ofor
after midnight June 10, 1989, Mr. Johnson had used the single, clear plastic sleeve enclosing his
Driver's license and picture I.D. card ("Plastic Sleeve") to separate marijuana leaves from other
debris (stems, seeds, dirt, etc.), and he rolled two marijuana joints. Ms. Slagle then smoked the
- Later in his direct testimony. Palrolman Spencer was asked and he answered: "Q. How was it that you noticed
that LD. there in the doorway? A. I kicked it up with my foot."

9

Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial

Case 2:17-cv-00074-SWS Document 1 Filed 04/17/17 Page 9 of 37

joints with Mr. Johnson and drank Lancers wine with him in her living room. When Mr.
Johnson and Ms. Slagle thereafter left the Attic Apartment to go to bars in downtown Cheyenne,
he inadvertently left the Plastic Sleeve with cards showing his identity on or near the marijuana
detritus sitting in a box top on the coffee table with the Lancers wine bottle. Neither Patrolman
Spencer nor any other law enforcement personnel, nor Ms. Slagle, ever disclosed to Mr.
Johnson's criminal trial counsel the marijuana smoking, the Lancers wine drinking, the related
marijuana physical evidence, or the Plastic Sleeve identification resting on the coffee table in the
Attic Apartment.

26. Questioned by the prosecutor, Patrolman Spencer continued:
Q: We're back to that point in time where you had just noticed that
identification, those I.D. cards that you made reference to. You reached
down and picked them up, showed them to the woman still you only knew
as the woman. You still did not know her name?

A. No, I did not.

Q. You indicated that when she saw those she became even more
hysterical?

A. Yes, she did.

Q. How long did it take her to calm down, before she could begin
conversing with you again to answer your question, "Is this the A.J. you're
talking about?"

A. Basically, from that point in time she started making reference, "Are
you sure nobody is still in here?" And myself and Officer Raybuck, we
did try to get her to calm down. In order to try to get her to calm down,
we went through and searched the apartment again and she went with us.

Q. Okay. So you assured her, as you walked through each and every
room with lights on, that nobody was there?

A. Yes.

Q. Did that help calm her down any?

10

Complainl and Demand for Jury Trial

Case 2:17-cv-00074-SWS Document 1 Filed 04/17/17 Page 10 of 37

A. Yes, it did.

Q. What then happened after that?

A. Then we went into the living room, and at that point I had asked her
what her name was, and tried to get an idea of what had gone on.
* * *

Q. So you are in the living room and you fmally got her calmed down. Is
that when you first learned her name was Laurie?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. What did you then do?

A. I started talking to her, trying to get indications on what had happened.
She was still —got bits and pieces of information. She was still hysterical
and crying, not as bad as before, but to the point that she was —it was hard
for her to talk because she was choked up and stuff. So at that point I was
just getting bits and pieces of information on who was there, and
indications she was possibly sexually assaulted at that time from her.

Q. Okay. Upon receiving that information, what did you then do?

A. Officer Raybuck, I had asked him to stay with Laurie so that I could go
down and talk with the original person who had called the police
department at the beginning. So 1proceeded and went down and talked to
Julia, talked to the lady that lived downstairs. Julia Prodis, I think is the
name.

C. First-Responder Crime Scene Photographing.

27. Officer Raybuck did the initial forensic collection of photographic evidence at the
Attic Apartment stairs, Landing Door, and living quarters (collectively "Crime Scene") in the
early morning ofJune 11, 1989, after Patrolman Spencer took Ms. Slagle to Memorial Hospital
in Cheyenne for medical examination and for taking rape kit samples. As ofthat time. Officer
Raybuck had been a CPD peace officer for approximately 10 years.

28. Then, as now, the sine qua non of crime scene investigation photography is to
follow a standard procedure. Based on his training and experience. Officer Raybuck did so the

11

Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial

Case 2:17-cv-00074-SWS Document 1 Filed 04/17/17 Page 11 of 37

early morning ofJune 11, 1989. The Crime Scene having been cleared, Officer Raybuck went
back to his patrol car to get his crime scene kit out ofthe trunk, loaded a cassette of unexposed
color negative film into a 35mm camera with flash, called the CPD dispatcher to get the CPD
case investigation number, and wrote a case-identifier card showing both the CPD case number--
-89-55912—and his badge number, P-8.

29. Using the loaded 35mm camera with flash, at the beginning ofthe film roll.
Officer Raybuck photographed the case-identifier card he had prepared. This procedure sought
to ensure that this specific 35 mm film cassette roll and corresponding negatives and print photos
were linked to the CPD investigation file. Case No. 89-55912.

30. For the forensic photographing, following his standard practice Officer Raybuck
first photographed the front outside ofthe House, showing the initial point of entry leading to the
Attic Apartment. When subsequently interviewed on February 10, 2015 by Plaintiffs counsel
and shown a print photo ofthe front ofthe House, Officer Raybuck said he did recall the
House's staircases leading up to the Attic Apartment and recalled photo-taking the ground-level
point of entry using the 35-mm camera with flash back in 1989.

31. It is presently unknown whether the next immediate sequence of photos taken by
Officer Raybuck on June 11, 1989, was of doorway/stairwell shots leading up to the Attic
Apartment or of photos ofthe Attic Apartment's living quarters. In any event, following his
standard procedure at that time and again using his 35mm camera with flash, Officer Raybuck
photographed the rooms ofthe Attic Apartment from different angles, including but not limited
to the bedroom, bathroom, and living room. Officer Raybuck is presently not sure whether he
also took Polaroid photos ofsome ofthe Crime Scene on June 11, 1989. Typically, as a first12
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial

Case 2:17-cv-00074-SWS Document 1 Filed 04/17/17 Page 12 of 37

responder backup, Officer Raybuck took one full roll of 35mm film per each crime scene and
victim.

D. The Crime Scene Film and Photographic Evidence.

32. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that defendant City,
through CPD, ultimately provided to the Laramie County District Attorney and thence to
Plaintiffs criminal trial counsel, twenty-six and only twenty-six Crime Scene photo prints in Mr.
Johnson's criminal case. Ofthese 26 photos, only 6 were taken by first-responder Officer
Raybuck who Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, shot a full roll of 35 mm
color film consisting of at least 24 to 36 photo negatives—shot first at the Crime Scene before
the sun rose at 5:26 a.m. the morning ofJune 11, 1989—and then ending with taking photos of
Ms. Slagle at Cheyenne's Memorial Hospital that day. Officer Raybuck's contemporary written
report of his actions on June 11, 1989, in part explains: "When Spencer returned [from talking
with Julia Prodis], I assisted Slagle to gather up some clothing to take to the hospital with her. I
then took photos ofthe broken door glass and the floor by the door. I then went to Memorial
Hospital where 1took photos of bruises and scratches on Slagles [sic] arms and inner thigh....
The film that I used was given to P-46 to be placed in evidence."

33. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Officer Raybuck
prepared a handwritten log ofthe Crime Scene photos he took on June 11, 1989, and that the
handwritten log has since been destroyed, misplaced, or lost, all ofwhich was never disclosed by
CPD to Plaintiffs criminal trial counsel.

34. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the other 20 Crime
Scene photos provided by CPD to the prosecutor, and thence to Mr. Johnson's criminal trial
counsel, were not taken by Officer Raybuck but were taken by or on behalf ofCPD at times

13

Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial

Case 2:17-cv-00074-SWS Document 1 Filed 04/17/17 Page 13 of 37

presently unknown to Plaintiff. On at least one such subsequent occasion, the Crime Scene
photographing was done by or with the assistance ofCPD patrolman Donald J. Edwards (badge
#P-41). One ofthese 20 photo prints shows a hand-held CPD case identifier-card on which is
hand-written: "89-55912 513 E 18'" St. Special For D.A. Photo P-41."

35. No written CPD report, stating when and who took these other 20 Crime Scene
photos, was ever provided to or made available to Plaintiffs criminal trial counsel. Plaintiff is
informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that no such contemporary written CPD report
was ever made, or if made has since been lost or destroyed by CPD.
36. At all relevant times, Mr. Johnson's criminal trial counsel was unaware that CPD
had failed to disclose a full set ofCrime Scene peace officer first-responder photos taken on June
11, 1989. At all relevant times, Mr. Johnson's criminal trial counsel was unaware that CPD had
failed to disclose all Crime Scene forensic photos taken by on behalfofCPD.

E. The Story Ms. Slagle Told.

37. Sometime between approximately 7:00 - 8:00 p.m. on June 10, 1989, Ms. Slagle
drove herselfto Jesse's Cowboy Bar ("Jesse's") in Cheyenne. She was frustrated. Earlier that
evening, she stated she attempted without success to speak by telephone with Mr. Haggberg,
whom she "hadn't heard from [] for two weeks" and whom she believed was in Rock Springs,
Wyoming, according to her trial testimony. Mr. Haggberg, a billboard painter employed by CBS
Signs, had been traveling and working outside ofCheyenne for two weeks.

38. For a while at Jesse's that evening, Ms. Slagle drank, talked, and had a good time
with two acquaintances, Jerry Manatowogee and Rose Ann. Over about a three-hour period, Ms.
Slagle drank a total offive beers. Sometime around or after 10:00 p.m., Mr. Johnson walked into
Jesse's. Ms. Slagle had previously met Plaintiffthrough Mr. Haggberg—he "was a really good
friend ofBarney's" according to her trial testimony. She and Mr. Haggberg had on at least one

14

Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial

Case 2:17-cv-00074-SWS Document 1 Filed 04/17/17 Page 14 of 37

prior occasion socialized with Plaintiff and his girlfriend, Annette Arias. Ms. Slagle described
Plaintiffthat evening ofJune 10, 1989 at Jesse's as "emphatic about something... and he told me
that he and his girlfriend had just broken up, and I wanted to know why... And I couldn't
understand why he had done such a thing, because I thought she was really neat." 'i had told
him, you know, we would go have a drink and talk about this."

39. According to Ms. Slagle, she and Plaintiffthen agreed to go to two other bars in
Cheyenne, the Mayflower and the Cheyenne Club. But first Ms. Slagle said she needed to return
to the Attic Apartment to get her I.D. and more money. She then drove Mr. Johnson to the
House in her car where, according to her testimony, he went into the living room and sat in a
chair while she searched for her I.D.

40. On direct exam by the prosecutor, her trial testimony continued:

Q. Did Mr. Johnson—did A.J., as you knew him—I'm sorry, did A.J.
ever leave that chair that you saw him go and sit down in in the living
room?

A. No, he didn't.

Q: Did you keep an eye on him?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And you never saw him leave that chair?

A. No.

Q. Okay. You were then walking around in your house?

A. First, I walked into the living room, and I looked on the living room
table for my I.D. and it wasn't there, and then I went to the bathroom to
get my birth certificate out. And I looked in my purse and it wasn't in
there. I went back in the living room and threw my purse down on the
love seat, and then I went into the bedroom and I looked behind the
headboard in the bedroom, because sometimes Barney puts the checkbook
there, and it wasn't there either. And I finally went back into the living

15

Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial

Case 2:17-cv-00074-SWS Document 1 Filed 04/17/17 Page 15 of 37

room and I told AJ. that, you know, 1didn't have my I.D. He said,
"That's okay, they know me."

Q. Then what did you do?

A. Then we left there and went to, I believe the Cheyenne Club first.

Q. Okay. So when you walked out in the living room and said 'i can't
find my I.D. anywhere," did you and he both walk straight down the
hallway and down and out ofthe apartment?

A. Yes, we did. He walked out first, because we have a really tricky
staircase, and sometimes, if there's not a light on, you know, you could
end up falling down. You have to be careful or you could get seriously
hurt.

41. At that point, Ms. Slagle told Plaintiff to drive them in her car to the Cheyenne
Club because "I pretty much had enough, you know, to drink, that 1shouldn't have been driving,
and if I had drove downtown there would be busy traffic and I didn't want to wreck the car.... 1
probably shouldn't of had anything else to drink. I was pretty well legally intoxicated."

42. Well before Mr. Johnson's criminal trial, CPD had requested ofthe Wyoming
State Crime Lab drug-testing and blood-alcohol level testing of blood samples taken from Ms.
Slagle and Mr. Johnson on June 11, 1989. No drug-test results were ever communicated in any
way to Plaintiffs criminal trial counsel, though blood-alcohol test results were.

43. On June 11,1989, Ms. Slagle and Mr. Johnson stayed at the Cheyenne Club
"Ij]ust for a few minutes... and then went across to the Mayflower" where, according to Ms.
Slagle, Plaintiff had either to show his I.D. card or to pay a cover charge, pulling from his back
pocket "his I.D. card." Her trial testimony on direct examination by the prosecutor continued:

Q. And you're sure that happened downtown?

A. Yes, I'm sure.

Q. No doubt in your mind at all?

A. No doubt about that.

16

Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial

Case 2:17-cv-00074-SWS Document 1 Filed 04/17/17 Page 16 of 37

Q. Now, even though you had been drinking earlier, there was no
possibility that your memory was clouded?

A. At that point my memory was not clouded.
* * *

Q. How long were you at the Mayflower?

A. Just a few minutes.

* * *

Q. So you left the Mayflower. Where did you go then?

A. Then I think we went to—well, we went to this building, and he
[Plaintiff] got out and said "We will wait here." And 1had gotten sick.
And that when he said "Well, just hang around," and he ran into the
building. When I got done getting sick, I had climbed over into the
driver's seat and put it in gear and then drove home.

* * *

Q. Okay. Do you know the name ofthe place that it was that A.J.
stopped and went inside?

A. No, I don't.

Q. And do you know if—do you recall telling him that you were going to
stay or leave when he said "Wait right here, I will be right back?"

A. I didn't say anything.

Q. Okay. After you had gotten sick, was A.J. anywhere to be seen?

A. No, he wasn't. He was inside the building, I imagine.

Q. Is that when you just, as you said, slid over, got behind the wheel and
left?

A. Yeah.

Q. Where did you go?

A. I went home.

Q. Do you recall how it was you got home?

A. I drove.

Q. Ok. Any difficulty driving home?

A. Not that 1 can think of

17

Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial

Case 2:17-cv-00074-SWS Document 1 Filed 04/17/17 Page 17 of 37

Q. After you got home, where did you park your car?

A. Out in front.

Q. What did you do then?

A. I had gone up the stairs and undressed and climbed in bed.

Q. Okay. Now, as you went upstairs, did you have to flip on that light
switch that you talked about?

A. No, I don't have to. I know it pretty well.

Q. Ok. So you came upstairs. You undressed in the dark?

A. Yes.

Q. And went to bed. Do you know what time it was you did all ofthat?

A. No, I don't.

44. Ms. Slagle says she was awakened from her sleep in the Attic Apartment that
early morning, hearingbanging on the Attic Apartment door at the second-floor landing, the
soundof breaking glass, the lock clickon the door, and the sound ofsomeone walking acrossthe
broken glass and up the lastflight of stairsto the Attic Apartment. At trial,she thenexplained
under direct examination:

Q. Now, up to that point in time, had you thoughtof leaving that
bedroom or goinganywhere when you heardthe glass break?

A. I had thought about it, but I wasso tired and I wasso sound asleep
that Ijust couldn't move.

Q. Were you so drunk that you couldn't move?

A. That's tme.

Q. The fact that you had been drinking, did that seem to affect your
ability to see, hear, and recognize all these sounds that you're telling us
about?

A. No, it didn't.

45. At trial, Ms. Slagle testified that it was Mr. Johnson who broke intothe Attic
Apartment and raped herthere onJune 11,1989. At trial, Mr. Haggberg testified that hewas out

18

Complaintand Demand for Jury Trial

Case 2:17-cv-00074-SWS Document 1 Filed 04/17/17 Page 18 of 37

oftown at the time ofthe break-in and sexual assault. These were all lies, aided or abetted by
defendants' actions and inactions as pled herein.

F. Mr. Johnson's Actions the Early Morning of June 11, 1989.

46. Ms. Slagle had vomited in her car during the time Mr. Johnson was driving them
from the Mayflower Bar to the "building," an after-hours club known as the Apollo, at 901
Snyder Street in Cheyenne. Mr. Johnson went inside the Apollo to get some paper towels to
help clean up the vomit. When he returned outside, Ms. Slagle and her car were gone. Mr.
Johnson then walked home to hisresidence at 512 E. 2"^^ Street inCheyenne, about a 35-minute
walk. He undressed and went to bed.

47. Mr. Johnson's next recollection is being awakened by knocking at his front door.
CPD patrol officer R. F. Bilkie (badge #P-5) ("Officer Bilkie") was there. Officer Bilkie asked
to be admitted to the residence. Mr. Johnson let Officer Bilkie in. Officer Bilkie's written report
states, among other things, that a dialogue then ensued in which Mr. Johnson denied having any
knowledge about a burglary and sexual assault earlier that morning. Officer Bilkie then arrested
Mr. Johnson, transported him to jail, booked him and jailed him.

G. Detective Stanford's Investigative Efforts.

48. Shortly after 5 a.m. on June 11, 1989, Detective Stanford had been informed by
telephone by CPD patrol officers that Ms. Slagle had been sexually assaulted, vaginally
penetrated, and that the suspect, Mr. Johnson, was in custody. That morning, Stanford prepared
and obtained search warrants to obtain sexual assault kit biological evidence from Mr. Johnson
and to search Mr. Johnson's residence for clothing Ms. Slagle said he wore. Detective Stanford
executed upon both search warrants that day. At Mr. Johnson's residence. Detective Stanford
found no clothes matching those described by Ms. Slagle as being worn by Mr. Johnson, except
a panama-style hat. Stanford logged Mr. Johnson's rape kit biological samples, and two pairs of

19

Complalnl and Demand for Jury Trial

Case 2:17-cv-00074-SWS Document 1 Filed 04/17/17 Page 19 of 37

shoes and two panama hats found at Mr. Johnson's residence, into the CPD Property Room
under receipt #B 4304.

49. Ms. Slagle and Mr. Haggberg met with Detective Stanford at the police station on
June 12, 1989. To the best of Plaintiffs knowledge, Stanford made no tape recording ofthis
critical first interview, or alternatively, if he made a tape recording, it has since been lost,
destroyed, or overwritten. Detective Stanford neither prepared nor caused to be prepared a
verbatim transcription ofthis critical first meeting. Instead, he wrote a sketchy I-page report of
information provided by Ms. Slagle and Mr. Haggberg at that time.

50. In a subsequent recorded and partially transcribed interview of Ms. Slagle at the
police station on June 15, 1989, she told Detective Stanford that she bit Mr. Johnson twice in his
shoulder area while he was supposedly raping her. In fact, no such bite marks were noticed by
the jailers who held Mr. Johnson or by anyone else who physically examined him. The supposed
bite marks never existed.

51. Detective Stanford interviewed Ms. Slagle a third time, on June 30, 1989. This
interview was tape-recorded and a partial transcription ofit made. In this interview, Ms. Slagle
said that she and Mr. Haggberg had not had sex since June 1988, a year ago, because of
complications arising, among other things, from STD surgery she had about that time. This
recorded statement, known to Detective Stanford, was radically at odds with other information
then known to him. Detective Stanford had obtained a medical record release from Ms. Slagle
through which he had obtained the Memorial Hospital Emergency Department Physician's Note
of Dr. Phillip Johnston who had performed the sexual assault physical examination of Ms. Slagle
on the early morning ofJune 11, 1989. In that writing. Dr. Johnston reported that Ms. Slagle
said that the last consenting sexual intercourse she had was about "3 wks ago."

20

Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial

Case 2:17-cv-00074-SWS Document 1 Filed 04/17/17 Page 20 of 37

52. Detective Stanford and other CPD DOE defendants were recklessly and
deliberately indifferent to investigating, or causing to be investigated, and independently
corroborating, Mr. Haggberg's claimed alibi that he was on an employment assignment in Rock
Springs, Wyoming, at the time ofthe alleged rape. None of Mr. Haggberg's employer's
personnel ever would, could or can now corroborate his alibi. Detective Stanford recklessly and
irresponsibly failed to corroborate Mr. Haggberg's alibi through any source other than Ms.
Slagle and Mr. Haggberg himself

53. Detective Stanford testified in Mr. Johnson's criminal trial. Among other things,
he stated that sometime late Tuesday morning June 13, 1989—well after Officer Raybuck
departed thethen-uncontaminated Crime Scene bedroom^ and well after Ms. Slagle and Mr.
Haggberg re-occupied the Attic Apartment—Ms. Slagle telephoned him to tell him that she had
discovered "additional evidence," eyeglasses, in the bedroom ofthe Attic Apartment. As
parroted by Ms. Slagle under questioning by the prosecutor at Mr. Johnson's trial:
Q. Okay. Did there come a time when you found some glasses in your
apartment?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. When did that take place?

A. Well, Detective Stanford—I believed it was Monday, but it was
actually the following Tuesday, because Barney and I had gone down to
the police department Mondayand Barney spent all day Monday with me.
The day that I had found the glasses Barney was at work.

Q. That's Tuesday. Tell me about Tuesday. How did you find the
glasses?

A. Tuesday I [was] trying to pick my life back up, and 1had gone into the
bedroom and I had stripped the bed and had washed the sheets and
^ Officer Raybuck reported on June 11, 1989; "I checked the bathroomand bedroom,also nothing usable found.

21

Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial

Case 2:17-cv-00074-SWS Document 1 Filed 04/17/17 Page 21 of 37

everything, and when I had put the blani^ets bacic on the bed and picked up
theclothes and everything Iseen the glasses laying there. I wentto pick
them up, and then I realized they must have been A.J.'s. So I called
Detective Stanford right away, and he came and picked them up.

* * *

Q. Flashing back earlier, you testified that you were positive, without any
doubt, that you saw that I.D. card used downtown by AJ.

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And you testified that you were the last one out ofthat apartment,
flipping out that hall light as you went down when you were there earlier.

Y. Yes.

Q. Is it possible that I.D. was on the floor then?

A. No.

Q. How about the glasses? Is it possible that A.J. threw those glasses
into the corner ofthe room as he was walking out?

A. No, he didn't, because he had his glasses on at the bar. I recall him
taking them off one time and wiping them down.

Q. Have you ever seen A.J. without his glasses?

A. No.

54. The eyeglasses supposedly found by Ms. Slagle in the Attic Apartment bedroom
wereplanted thereafter-the-fact by or on behalfof Ms. Slagle. It is presently unknown how Ms.
Slagle actually obtained the glasses and whether Mr. Haggberg assisted her inthe ruse. It is
presently unknown whether Detective Stanford, or any other CDP personnel, played any role in
this deliberate fabrication of evidence. Plaintiff will seek to amend this Complaint after
appropriate discovery to attempt to get to the bottom of this evidence fabrication.

22

Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial

Case 2:17-cv-00074-SWS Document 1 Filed 04/17/17 Page 22 of 37

V. MR. JOHNSON^S FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF: VIOLATIONS OF 42 U.S.C.
S 1983—SUPPRESSION OF MATERIAL EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE
(BRADY CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS DOES 1-10 & DEFENDANT
SPENCER)

55. Plaintiff hereby incorporates ail statements and allegations contained in
paragraphs I through 54 above as if fully set forth herein.
56. DOE defendants 2 through 10are CPD personnel, whose names and nature of
involvement are presently unknown to Plaintiff, who assisted or otherwise aided or abetted or
conspired with Detective Stanford and/or Patrolman Spencer or others in sanitizing, suppressing,
and/or withholding Crime Scene forensic photos from the prosecutor and thus from Mr.
Johnson's criminal trial counsel.

57. The missing Crime Scene forensic photographs, or some ofthem, were material
exculpatory or impeaching evidence at least insofar as they or one or more ofthem would have
enabled Plaintiffs criminal trial counsel to impeach the direct trial testimony ofMs. Slagle,
Patrolman Spencer, Detective Stanford, and/or others.

58. For example, Ms. Slagle's direct trial testimony was completely devoid of any
mention or explanation whatsoever ofthe marijuana smoking and wine drinking she did in the
Attic Apartment with Mr. Johnson before they departed to the Mayflower Bar and Cheyenne
Club. Some ofthe missing film and photographs would show signs ofthis activity in the Attic
Apartment. Some ofthe missing forensic film and photographs may also have enabled Mr.
Johnson's criminal trial counsel to impeach Ms. Slagle's trial testimony about the location where
she supposedly originally found the eyeglasses in the Attic Apartment.

59. The missing forensic film and photographs, or one or more ofthem, would also
have enabled Mr. Johnson's criminal trial counsel to impeach Defendant Spencer's direct trial

23

Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial

Case 2:17-cv-00074-SWS Document 1 Filed 04/17/17 Page 23 of 37

testimony aboutwhere Mr. Johnson's plastic-sleeved I.D. and Drivers License wereoriginally
found in the Attic Apartment.

60. The aforesaid conduct ofthese defendants, and each ofthem, injured Plaintiff

61. The refusal and failure ofthese defendants, acting under color ofstate law, to
disclose the missing Crime Scene forensic photographs, or some ofthem, to Mr. Johnson's
criminal trial counsel was a direct violation of his clearly established constitutional rights under
the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to full disclosure by government actors of all material
exculpatory and impeaching evidence, as described in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
and its progeny. The missing and undisclosed Crime Scene forensic photos, or some ofthem,
resulted in Mr. Johnson not getting a "fundamentally fair" criminal trial, see United States v.
Bagleym U.S. 667, 675 (1985).

62. The aforesaid conduct of Detective Stanford, Defendant Spencer, and DOES 2
through 10 and each ofthem, was malicious and oppressive and warrants the award of punitive
damages.

63. As a proximate result ofthe misconduct of Detective Stanford, Defendant
Spencer, and DOES 2 through 10 and each ofthem, Plaintiff was severely injured and damaged
and is entitled to judgment and damages as is more specifically detailed in that section ofthis
Complaint denominated as "Prayer for Relief."

VI. MR. JOHNSON'S SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF: VIOLATIONS OF 42
U.S.C. S 1983—FAILURES TO PRESERVE/DISCLOSE APPARENT
EXCULPATORY & POTENTIALLY USEFUL EVIDENCE (TROMBETTA &
YOUNGBLOOD CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS DOES 1-10 &
DEFENDANT SPENCER)

64. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all statements and allegations contained in
paragraphs I through 63 above as if fully set forth herein.

24

Complaint and Demand For Jury Trial

Case 2:17-cv-00074-SWS Document 1 Filed 04/17/17 Page 24 of 37

65. The missing Crime Scene forensic film and photographs, or some ofthem, were
apparent exculpatory and potentially useful evidence insofar as they or one or more ofthem
would have enabled Plaintiffs criminal trial counsel to impeach the direct trial testimony of Ms.
Slagle, Patrolman Spencer, Detective Stanford, and/or others.

66. Detective Stanford, defendants DOE 2 through 10 and/or Defendant Spencer, and
each ofthem, acted in bad faith in concealing, failing to preserve, destroying, withholding,
and/or failing to disclose these forensic film and photographs, or one or more ofthem.
67. By its very nature, a full and complete set ofthe first-responder Crime Scene film
and/or photographic prints in this case was itself apparent exculpatory and potentially useful
evidence to Mr. Johnson's criminal trial counsel. Depending on their contents, missing
individual Crime Scene film and photographs taken by Officer Raybuck also had apparent
exculpatory and potentially useful value to Mr. Johnson's defense. Missing Crime Scene
forensic film and photographs subsequently taken at the Attic Apartment may also have had
apparent exculpatory and potentially useful value to the defense at Mr. Johnson's criminal trial.
68. The refusal and failure ofthese defendants, acting under color ofstate law, to
preserve and disclose the missing Crime Scene forensic film and photographs, or some ofthem,
to Mr. Johnson's criminal trial counsel was a direct violation of his clearly established
constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to preservation and disclosure
by the police of "evidence that might be expected to play a significant role in the suspect's
defense[,]" California v. Twmbetta, 467 U.S. 479, 488 (1984). The Constitution imposes a clear
"obligation" on the police "to preserve [and reveal] evidence... [that] could form the basis for
exonerating the defendant." Arizona v. Yoimgblood, 488 U.S. 51, 58 (1988).

69. The aforesaid conduct ofthese defendants, and each ofthem, injured Plaintiff

25

Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial

Case 2:17-cv-00074-SWS Document 1 Filed 04/17/17 Page 25 of 37

70. The aforesaid conduct of Detective Stanford, Defendant Spencer, and DOES 2
through 10 and each ofthem, was malicious and oppressive and warrants the award of punitive
damages.

71. As a proximate result ofthe misconduct of Detective Stanford, Defendant
Spencer, and DOES 2 through 10 and each ofthem. Plaintiffwas severely injured and damaged
and is entitled to judgment and damages as is more specifically detailed in that section ofthis
Complaint denominated as ''Prayer for Relief."

VII. MR. JOHNSON'S THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF: VIOLATIONS OF 42
U.S.C S 1983-~DELIBERATE FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE
(AGAINST DEFENDANT SPENCER AND DOES 11-15)

72. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all statements and allegations contained in
paragraphs 1 through 71 above as if fully set forth herein.

73. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that on June 11,1989,
Defendant Spencerremoved Mr. Johnson's Plastic Sleeve from the Attic Apartment coffee table
when Defendant Spencerdid his first walk-through of the Attic Apartment living room to check
if an intruder was there; shortly thereafter, when endeavoring to learnthe identity of the intruder
and before Ms. Slagle in any waygenerally orspecifically identified the man who"hurt" her in
the Attic Apartment that earlymorning, Patrolman Spencer showed Ms. Slagle Mr. Johnson's
l.D. or Driver's License in the Plastic Sleeve, recklessly and carelessly or with deliberate
indifference or willful blindness to Mr. Johnson's federally protected rights, prompting Ms.
Slagle at that time to affirmatively assert Mr. Johnson was that man.

74. Thereafter, DefendantSpencer falsely reported that he found the Plastic Sleeve at
the foot of the Attic Apartment bathroom door, falsely reported that Ms. Slagle identified the
intruder by nickname or initialsbefore he showedMr. Johnson's l.D. or Driver's Licensepicture
to Ms. Slagle, and falsely testified under oath at trial to the same effect. Defendant Spencer's

26

Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial

Case 2:17-cv-00074-SWS Document 1 Filed 04/17/17 Page 26 of 37

knowing efforts to securea suspectidentification by fabricating evidence or by otherwise
corruptly influencing the alleged victim, a key witness, is not entitled to qualified immunity.
These and other actions of Defendant Spencer violated Mr. Johnson's clearly established rights
under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to a fair trial and to be convicted only upon
reliable evidence.

75. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that defendants DOES 11 -
15, and each ofthem, aided or abetted or conspired with Defendant Spencer to fabricate evidence
against Mr. Johnson, all to his detriment.

76. The aforesaid conduct of Defendant Spencer and DOES 11-15 each ofthem, was
malicious and oppressive and warrants the award of punitive damages.
77. As a proximate result ofthe misconduct of Defendant Spencer and DOES 11
through 15 and each ofthem, Plaintiffwas severely injured and damaged and is entitled to
judgment and damages as is more specifically detailed in that section ofthis Complaint
denominated as "Prayer for Relief."

VIIL MR. JOHNSON'S FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: VIOLATIONS OF 42
U.S.C. S 1983 -SELECTIVE PRESERVATION AND DISCLOSURE OF
EVIDENCE (MONELL CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT CITY)

78. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all statements and allegations contained in
paragraphs 1 through 77 above as if fully set forth herein.

79. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that in 1989 at the
time ofthe investigation and prosecution ofthe crimes ofwhich Mr. Johnson was accused and
convicted, CPD had no written policies or procedures, or had constitutionally inadequate written
policies or procedures:

a. Requiring the assigned investigating officers or one ofthem, or one oftheir

27

Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial

Case 2:17-cv-00074-SWS Document 1 Filed 04/17/17 Page 27 of 37

superiors or other designated CPD personnel, to disclose to and provide to the
prosecutor at least one full set ofall CPD forensic photographs taken of a crime
scene;

b. Requiringthe assigned investigating officers or one of them, or one oftheir
superiors or other designated CPD personnel, to make, maintain and preserve a
case-specific chain-of-custody log or record for each CPD cassette ofexposed
undeveloped negative film taken of a crime scene;

c. Requiring the assigned investigating officers or one ofthem, or one oftheir
superiors or other designated personnel, to make, maintain, and preserve a casespecific chain-of-custody log or record for all developed negative film exposures
of a crime scene;

d. Requiring the assigned investigating officers or one ofthem, or one oftheir
superiors or other designated CPD personnel, to make, maintain and preserve a
case-specific chain-of-custody log ofthe number of prints made ofcrime scene
photographs;

e. Requiring CPD Property Room custodians or one ofthem to obtain, maintain,
identify, log, group case-by-case, and permanently preserve each and every
developed negative film exposure of a crime scene taken by or on behalf ofCPD;

f. Requiring CPD Property Room custodians to obtain, maintain, identify, log,
group case-by-case, and permanently preserve one complete set of each and every
photographic print ofa crime scene made by or on behalfofCPD; and

g. Prohibiting the destruction of any undeveloped and developed negative film of a
crime scene.

28

Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial

Case 2:17-cv-00074-SWS Document 1 Filed 04/17/17 Page 28 of 37

80. Allor someof the constitutionally inadequate written policies or procedures as
alleged herein was a moving force in causing constitutional injury to Mr. Johnson as pled herein.
81. Alternatively, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that in
1989 at the time ofthe investigation and prosecution ofthe crimes ofwhich Mr. Johnson was
accused and convicted, CPD inadequately monitored and enforced its written policies or
procedures:

a. Requiring the assigned investigating officers or one ofthem, or one oftheir
superiors or other designated CPD personnel, to disclose to and provide to the
prosecutor at least one full set ofall CPD forensic photographs taken of a crime
scene;

b. Requiring the assigned investigating officersor one of them, or one oftheir
superiors or other designated CPD personnel, to make, maintainand preserve a
case-specific chain-of-custody log or record for each CPD cassette of exposed
undeveloped negative film taken of a crime scene;

c. Requiring the assigned investigating officers or one of them, or one of their
superiors or other designated personnel, to make, maintain, and preserve a casespecific chain-of-custody log or record for all developed negative film exposures
of a crime scene;

d. Requiring the assigned investigating officers or oneof them, or one of their
superiors or otherdesignated CPD personnel, to make, maintain and preserve a
case-specific chain-of-custody log of the numberof prints madeof crime scene
photographs;

e. Requiring CPD Property Room custodians or one of them to obtain, maintain,

29

Complaint and Demand Cor Jury Trial

Case 2:17-cv-00074-SWS Document 1 Filed 04/17/17 Page 29 of 37

identify, log, group case-by-case, and permanently preserve each and every
developed negative film exposure of a crime scene taken by or on behalf ofCPD;
f Requiring CPD Property Room custodians to obtain, maintain, identify, log,
group case-by-case, and permanently preserve one complete set of each and every
photographic print of a crime scene made by or on behalfofCPD; and

g. Prohibiting the destruction of any undeveloped and developed negative film of a
crime scene.

82. All or some ofthe constitutionally inadequate written policies or procedures as
alleged herein was a moving force in causing constitutional injury to Mr. Johnson as pled herein.

83. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that CPD custom or
practice in 1989 was for the assigned investigating patrolman and/or detective and/or CPD
supervisor to maintain in his/her own case investigation file, on a temporary basis or until
completionor closure ofthe case, the negativesofthe crime scene photographs taken by CPD
personnel, thereby allowingforselective preservation and givingof the negatives to a Property
Room custodian for permanent safekeeping and preservation, all or someof which was a moving
force in causing constitutional injuryto Mr. Johnson as pled herein.

84. Plaintiffis informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that CPD custom or
practice at the time was for investigating patrolman and/or detective and/or CPD supervisor to
maintain in his/her own case investigation file, on a temporary basis or until completion or
closure of the case, the prints of the crime scene photographs taken by CPD personnel, thereby
allowing forselective giving, if any, of one or more such printsto the prosecutor and to defense
counsel, all or some ofwhich was a moving force in causing constitutional injury to Mr. Johnson
as pled herein.

30

Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial

Case 2:17-cv-00074-SWS Document 1 Filed 04/17/17 Page 30 of 37

85. Defendant City through CPD purposefully, or with reckless or deliberate
indifference, or with willful blindness, failed to have adequate policies, rules, procedures,
customs or practicesin place as of 1989, or failed to monitoror enforcethe same,resulting in
violation ofMr. Johnson's constitutional rights.

86. Defendant City through CPD, through action and/or inaction, directly and
proximatelyset in motion a series of acts by Detective Stanford and/or Patrolman Spencer and/or
others which these defendants knew or should have known would cause constitutional injuries to
Mr. Johnson.
87. Defendant City through CPD made a deliberate and conscious choice among
various alternatives as pled herein, resulting in errors of constitutional magnitude in the
investigation and conviction ofMr. Johnson, all directly caused by one or more ofthe crime
investigators and/or others suppressing and/or failing to preserve photographic evidence helpful
or potentially helpful to Mr. Johnson's criminal defense.

88. The aforesaid conduct of Defendant City injured Plaintiff.
89. As a proximate result ofthe misconduct of Defendant City, Plaintiffwas severely
injured and damaged and is entitled to judgment and damages as is more specifically detailed in
that section ofthis Complaint denominated as "Prayer for Relief"

IX. MR. JOHNSON'S FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: VIOLATIONS OF 42 U.S.C. S
1983—CONSTITUTIONALLY INADEOUATE TRAINING AND/OR
SUPERVISION (CANTON CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT CITY:
INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS AGAINST DOES 16-20)

90. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all statements and allegations contained in
paragraphs 1 through 89 above as if fully set forth herein.

91. Defendants DOES 16-20 are sued here in their individual and official capacities.
The conduct ofthese defendants, sued in their official capacities, bear upon the entity liability of

31

Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial

Case 2:17-cv-00074-SWS Document 1 Filed 04/17/17 Page 31 of 37

Defendant City for itsfailure to train and/orsuperviseCPD personnel. DOES 16through 20,
and each ofthem, were individually responsible for the training and/or supervision ofCPD
personnel as alleged herein.

92. As of 1989, CPD detectives and patrolmen were trained by utilizing a
combination ofon-the-job training and classroom training, if any. Mr. Johnson is informed and
believes, and on that basis alleges, that Detective Stanford had little or no classroom detective
training as ofthe time he was assigned to investigate the crimes of which Mr. Johnson was
accused, charged, and convicted. As ofJune 1989, Detective Stanford had been a CPD peace
officer slightly more than 4 years and had approximately 6 months ofdetective on-the-job or inservice training.
93. In Detective Stanford's investigation of accusations that Mr. Johnson had broken
into the Attic Apartment and sexuallyassaulted Ms. Slagle, Detective Stanford did not conform
critical parts of hisinvestigative conduct to standard police procedure methods, norevento his
basic training regarding peace officer investigative conduct. As of thattime, Defendant City,
through CPD, had inadequately trained and monitored and supervised Detective Stanford in his
detective actions on its behalf in this case. The same holds for Defendant Spencer in his patrol
officer conduct in this case.

94. Defendant City through CPD,and DOES 16 through 20 and eachof them, had
responsibility to assign a competent detective to conduct the investigation against Mr. Johnson,
had the power and authority to assign and to train Detective Stanford for such investigation, and
had responsibility to monitor and to supervise Detective Stanford's conduct of the investigation.
Defendant City through CPD, and DOES 16 through 20 and each of them, knew or with
reasonable diligence should have known of Detective Stanford's lack of adequate training and

32

Complaint and Demand tor Jurj' Trial

Case 2:17-cv-00074-SWS Document 1 Filed 04/17/17 Page 32 of 37

experience to undertake investigation of and/or recommendation of ciiarges against Mr. Jolinson.

The conduct and inaction of each ofthese policymakers or supervisors relating to such training,
assignment, monitoring, and supervision of Detective Stanford and Patrolman Spencer
demonstrated a grossly negligent, reckless, callous or deliberate indifference, or willful
blindness, to violation of Mr. Johnson's federal rights as pled herein.

95. Given his inadequate training and experience, particularly in view ofthe
demonstrated lack of credibility ofthe suspected victim on critical issues. Detective Stanford was
unfit for conducting the investigation and unfit to make charging recommendations without very
substantial active participation, or very active and critical oversight, ofthe investigation by
another appropriately trained and experienced CPD peace officer. Defendant City through CPD,
and DOES 16 through 20 and each ofthem, purposefully, or with reckless or deliberate
indifference, or with willful blindness, failed to give or provide such guidance, supervision,
monitoring, oversight and control ofDetective Stanford's conduct and of Patrolman Spencer's
conduct ofthat investigation, resulting in violation ofMr. Johnson's constitutional rights.

96. Defendant City through CPD, and DOES 16 through 20 and each ofthem,
through action and inaction, directly and proximately set in motion a series of acts by Detective
Stanford and/or Patrolman Spencer and/or others which these defendants knew or should have
known would cause constitutional injuries to Mr. Johnson.

97. Defendant City through CPD, and DOES 16 through 20 and each ofthem, made a
deliberate and conscious choice among various alternatives when assigning Detective Stanford
and Patrolman Spencer to the investigation, or when ratifying the assignment, or when failing to
train and supervise Detective Stanford and Patrolman Spencer adequately therefor, resulting in
errors of constitutional magnitude in the investigation and conviction of Mr. Johnson, all directly

33

Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial

Case 2:17-cv-00074-SWS Document 1 Filed 04/17/17 Page 33 of 37

caused by one or more ofthe crime investigators fabricating evidence and/or suppressing, and/or
failing to preserve photographic evidence helpful or potentially helpful to Mr. Johnson's defense.

98. In light ofthe duties assigned CPD detectives, including but not limited to
Detective Stanford, the need for more and different training and/or supervision in investigations
of alleged interracial rape was obvious, and with the exercise ofreasonable care should have
been obvious to Defendant City, and to DOES 16 through 20 and each ofthem, as applied to the
investigation and prosecution ofMr. Johnson. Defendant City, and DOES 16 through 20 and
each ofthem, were recklessly, callously, or deliberately indifferent, or willfully blind, to the need
for such supervision and for the completion ofsuch training by Detective Stanford, prior to
undertaking or completing such investigations, given that the inadequacy or absence ofsuch
supervision and/or training was so likely to result in violation of a non-Caucasian suspect's
constitutional rights. At all relevant times. Defendant City, and DOES 16 through 20 and each
ofthem, failed to train and/or supervise the CPD detectives adequately for and in the
investigation of alleged interracial rape cases, as well as others. The inadequacy and absenceof
such supervision and/ortraining did in fact result in violation ofMr. Johnson's constitutional
rights.

99. The foregoing conduct of DOES 16 through 20, and each ofthem sued in his/her
individual capacity, was malicious and oppressive, warranting the award of punitive damages
against each ofthem.

100. As a proximateresult ofthe misconductof Defendant City and DOES 16through
20, Plaintiffwas severely injured and damaged and is entitled to judgment and damages as is
more specifically detailed in that section of this Complaint denominated as "Prayer for Relief."

34

Complaint and Demand For Jury Trial

Case 2:17-cv-00074-SWS Document 1 Filed 04/17/17 Page 34 of 37

X. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

101. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all statements and allegations contained in
paragraphs 1 through 100 above as if fully set forth herein.

Outcome: 102. Plaintiffseeks judgment as follows:

a. Compensatory- general, and special damages against all defendants, and each of
them, in an amount to be proven at trial, including but not limited to damages for
physical pain and suffering, emotional pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of
life, and loss ofearnings and earning capacity:

b. Punitive and exemplary damages against all defendants, except Defendant City;

c. Prejudgment interest according to proof:

d. Reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses of litigation as allowed by 42 U.S.C. §
1988 and other applicable law;

e. Costs ofsuit reasonably incurred;

f. That Defendant City be required to pay any judgment pursuant to law;

g. That Wyoming, pursuant to State law governing its indemnification obligations
for sworn peace officers, pay any judgment against any CPD personnel or his
personal representative as alleged herein.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: