Andrew J. Johnson v. Cheyenne, Wyoming, et al.

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.

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.