Missing Evidence Detail

Summary of Claim

The claim relates to investigation into the December 1996 murder of David Coffin, Jr. in Atlanta, GA and the prosecution of Scott Winfield Davis (Indictment #05SC37460) in 2005/2006 in Fulton County Superior Court. The actual claim is that the State of Georgia’s (which includes at a minimum the Atlanta Fire Dept., the Atlanta Police, DeKalb Fire and Safety, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and the Fulton County D.A.’s office) non-preservation of at least 70 pieces of constitutionally material evidence and virtually all of it’s chain of custody documentation mandated by the standard prescribed processes and operating procedures violated Mr. Davis’ constitutional due process rights. The State’s lack of providing any reasonable innocent explanation for the non-preservation of this evidence and its related documentation clearly proves bad faith, official animus and/or a calculated and deliberate indifference to ensure that the material evidence was not preserved, and to therefore, deprive Mr. Davis of his constitutional right to present a vigorous and meaningful defense.

Mr. Davis was originally arrested on December 13th, 1996 and held in the Fulton County Jail for 90 days before he was released on bond. Mr. Davis remained out on bond until approximately June of 1998 when the District Attorney Paul Howard dropped all the charges against Mr. Davis without ever indicting him. During the time period of December 10th, 1996 until November 2005, the State claims to have continually been investigating the murder yet was supposedly unable to put together enough evidence against Mr. Davis until his indictment. Over that almost 9 year period, the various State agencies collected, analyzed and passed around dozens of pieces of material physical evidence. During this nine-year period, the State maintained control of this evidence and Mr. Davis had no access to the evidence and did not in fact even know of the existence of the most of the evidence.

12/29/08

After Mr. Davis’ indictment in November 2005, Mr. Davis opted in to the mutual discovery provision and was promptly told that almost all of the physical evidence was missing or destroyed without explanation. It became immediately clear though that the State in truth had somehow managed to preserve all the evidence it deemed inculpatory yet the rest of the evidence with varying exculpatory value had not been preserved. It also was found that the various State agencies could or would only provide a miniscule and completely incomplete set of chain of custody documentation. State witnesses provided no further enlightening information and it became clear that no formal investigations were conducted by any agency and that no one was taking responsibility for the non-preservation of the evidence.

The trial was conducted from October 2006 to December 2006 and Mr. Davis was convicted of malice murder and sentenced to life in prison. Mr. Davis appealed his conviction in a motion for new trial. Mr. Davis and his new attorneys served subpoenas and sent Open Records requests to the various agencies and continued to attempt to investigate the missing evidence. The further Mr. Davis pushed to get information, the more it became apparent that the State had both been withholding information and had also completely failed to follow standard procedure in handling the evidence. New documents were suddenly produced and stories changed. It became clear that the story the State witnesses told at trial was both incorrect and incomplete. The facts became clear that the State probably had a large majority of the missing evidence virtually up until Mr. Davis’ indictment. It also became clear that the evidence that the State saw as valuable for prosecution was handled with extreme care and preserved carefully while the rest of the evidence was handled without regard to the law or to even the most basic common sense or established operating procedures. It also became clear that some of the State actors were not going to cooperate willingly when one of the original homicide detectives dodged two valid subpoenas to testify and production of document subpoenas were ignored.

So, the only conclusion that could reasonably be reached is that there has been either an intentional effort or a loosely coordinated yet calculated indifference on the part of the various state actors to allow the evidence in the case (only that was not helpful to the prosecution) to disappear. The continued stonewalling, avoidance and outright refusal to provide testimony, evidence documentation and any innocent explanation for such behavior could only be explained by a continuing effort by the various State actors to cover-up their misconduct or cloud the issue as to avoid further discovery.

Specific Claims

The specific claims related to the non-preserved evidence (and the State’s misconduct around it) are plentiful and not always clear as to which specific actor is responsible. The difficulty in holding specific actors responsible is directly caused by the various State agencies failure to follow standard operating procedure and complete failure to provide meaningful chain of custody documentation or testimony. The State’s witnesses who testified or responded to requests could usually only provide such explanations as “I don’t know what happened”, “it wasn’t my responsibility”, “we didn’t do a formal investigation”, etc. In other words, the answers were unacceptable by any professional or even common sense standard. So, the specific claims to follow will be laid out with the most likely responsible actors but it is oftentimes impossible to pinpoint where the chain specifically breaks because the State has provided such completely unacceptable and lacking documentation.

DeKalb Co. Evidence

Concerning Dekalb County’s handling of the evidence in this case, it is clear that the established evidence handling procedures were completely ignored. DeKalb County Fire and Police collected evidence from the victim’s burning Porsche found at approximately 11:26 am on Tuesday 12/10/96 at 1330 Fernwood Circle. From the documentation that exists and the testimony, there were apparently two case #’s assigned to this evidence (Please see Exhibit – Evidence Tracking Spreadsheet for a detailed breakdown of the evidence). The first was #96-501913 was assigned by the DeKalb Co. Police. On the evidence sheet related to this case # there were five items listed on the property and evidence sheet ending in 223 7 (unclear from photocopy). This sheet included a Browning IShotgun serial #03830PX5B3, a black flashlight, a gas can, keys and a knife. Apparently the so-called “Olympic Bag” used in trial was never actually logged in. On the sheet ending in 22388 (unclear from photocopy), there was one AT+T Plus Caller-ID. Secondly, there was case #96152688 assigned to evidence collected and sent to the GBI. This evidence was also collected from the victim’s Porsche. These items included a piece of floor mat, a sealed jar with liquid, a Sealed bag containing six latent lift cards taken off the Porsche. Also sent later were fingerprint cards from Scott Davis, Megan Lee and another suspect Kenneth Criswell.

Case #96-50913

For case #96-50193, there were no processing results given to Mr. Davis. If they were processed, there was no document provided for those results. On 7/28/97, John Richey from the Fulton County DA’s Office (FCDA) takes custody of the Caller-ID box. After that, it is never seen again and the FCDA has provided Chain of Custody (COC) report or anything else. For the other five items on this case#, the DeKalb records show that these items were “Destroyed” on 9/10/2001 although another printout shows that the items were sold. This destruction/sale was allowed despite multiple notations on the evidence sheets that the evidence could not be released. The evidence sheets are clearly marked as needing approval from various officers before release.

Case #96-52688

In this case also, it is clear that the S.O.P. was ignored again. According to the GBI COC for this case, the fingerprints associated with the victim’s Porsche were handled with care only when it was in the best interests of the State. These fingerprints were lifted from the Porsche by a GBI technician and almost immediately compared to the fingerprints of Mr. Davis. They did not match. The fingerprints were then later tested against Mr. Davis’ ex-wife Megan M. Lee and Kenneth Criswell. They did not match.

The state then unbelievably did not run them through the Automated Fingerprint Information System (AFIS) that contains over 50 million sets of prints nor do they run them through any other database. On 3/15/99, the GBI sent all the fingerprints, apparently, back DeKalb Fire by UPS. At this point, the documentation disappeared. There is no record that DeKalb Fire ever logs the evidence in despite multiple subpoenas and Open Records requests. The next time the fingerprints are apparently surfacing is in 2005 and we only know this because Carter Jackson from the Fulton County DA’s office testified that they had the prints then. There is no COC document. He admitted and documentation backs him up that they had the prints for the effort of trying to match the prints against the victim in early 2005. Again, the State was only trying to use the prints to discover evidence that was in their best interests. In other words, if the prints were the victim’s, they could claim the prints were irrelevant and no other suspect would be discovered for the defense’s use.

The State failed to match the prints to the victim despite a huge effort to do so. What is very revealing and very troubling is that once the State failed with their effort to help their case, these valuable fingerprints disappeared without a trace. This was the only type of evidence in the case that could possibly have identified suspects in the case. There was no other DNA or fingerprints collected in the case that could have done so. As well, the fingerprints disappeared right in the middle of the State’s renewed effort to prosecute Mr. Davis. His indictment was in November of 2005. The timing denied Mr. Davis his constitutional right to defend himself and aided the prosecution. The timing is not a coincidence.

DeKalb Evidence Handling Standard Procedure Disregarded

Overall, the DeKalb Police and Fire Departments completely disregarded written S.O.P. and established procedure in destroying this evidence. In the written DeKalb Co, Police Dept S.O.P. for Property and Evidence Sect. 4-16.17, it clearly states that the Property and Evidence Unit Commander was responsible for the evidence being preserved. In Section D. Processing Evidence, 2. Recording and Accountability of Evidence, it states that maintaining chain of custody is of “PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE”. It also states, “each officer/employee concerned in any manner with the handling or processing of evidence, from the moment of its acquisition to the time of final disposition shall be accountable for it’s care, preservation and safe keeping while that evidence is under their control”.

In Section G. Storage and Maintenance of Property and Evidence, 2. General Property and Evidence, it is clearly stated that “property that is considered evidence will be marked in red and cannot be released without permission of the police officer responsible for the evidence. In Section H. Disposition of Property and Evidence, it is clearly stated that it must be known “that each and every defendant has exhausted all appeal processes prior to the destruction of evidence in any case.” As well in the Section 1. Destruction of Property and Evidence, it clearly states that “whenever an officer designates “Destroy” or “Sale” as the disposition of evidence on the Property and Evidence Sheet, the Property and Evidence Unit Commander will request written (emphasis added) confirmation from the prosecuting attorney’s office … that the evidence will no longer be needed for evidentiary reasons.”

Finally in the Responsibility of all Personnel Submitting Items to the Property Room Section, it clearly states that “all officers who submit items to be held in the Property and Evidence Room have the absolute responsibility as to the disposition of such items”. It is clear that all of the state personnel responsible for preserving this material evidence flagrantly disregarded the standard processes and S.O.P. The loss is without any innocent explanation. This magnitude of loss was either intentional or calculate~ deliberate indifference to not preserve it.

Fulton County Evidence

The evidence recorded in Fulton County consists of evidence recovered at two scenes. The first scene was at 951 W. Conway in Atlanta. This was the scene where the victim was found in his burning home. The second scene was at 1567 Battleview Drive in Atlanta. This was where Mr. Davis was attacked twice at his home and police responded and collected only selective evidence.

Tracking evidence in Fulton County is difficult because the documentation is so poor or incomplete that it is impossible to pinpoint what happened or who is responsible. As well, all of the agencies including the Atlanta Police Dept., the Atlanta Fire Dept. the Fulton Co. DA’s office, and the GBI have not turned over their evidence handling procedures and S.O.P. despite numerous subpoenas and Open Records requests by Mr. Davis. In all cases, the evidence disappeared without explanation, documentation or any formal investigation.

It is clear that the lead persons responsible for preserving the evidence over the reputed continuous nine-year investigation completely failed in their duties. Many people are responsible but Paul Howard, Det. Ricky Chambers and Det. Marcel Walker all had responsibility for the case from the beginning. There apparently was no high level oversight concerning the evidence except in the case of the evidence deemed inculpatory by the State. The lost evidence in the case was ruled “material” by Fulton County Superior Court Judge Tom Campbell. The value of the ‘evidence had both “apparent” exculpatory value (e.g. the Porsche fingerprints that did not match Mr. Davis) and in other case “potential” exculpatory value simply only because had the evidence been available it would have been possible to find actual exculpatory value. Since it was not available, we simply can’t know. What does show from the detailed analysis of the lost evidence is that there clearly was a double standard when it came to preserving evidence. If it was deemed inculpatory by the State, it was tested, analyzed and preserved with care. If it was not deemed inculpatory or in fact exculpatory, it probably was lost.

The two case #’s associated with the Fulton County evidence are #96-52726 and APD #963460736. The movement and loss of this evidence is too complicated to put in a clear narrative. So therefore, please see Exhibit – Evidence Tracking Spreadsheet for a detailed breakdown of the evidence. It details the collection, movement, people and agencies involved and the current known state or final disposition for each piece of evidence.

Atlanta Police Dept. Case #963460736

The evidence handling by the Atlanta Police Dept., Detective Chambers and Detective Walker was unprofessional and incomplete from the beginning of the case. Chambers and Walker failed to thoroughly investigate the attacks on Mr. Davis at his house on Battleview Dr. in Atlanta on December 10, 1996. For example, a “torn piece of clothing” matching the attacker of Mr. Davis was found by a uniformed officer on Mr. Davis’ backyard fence located where this attacker fled. It was apparently never collected or was lost. Chambers and Walker also failed to look for fingerprints of the attacker that might have been located in certain places that attacker had been. They also failed to diligently look for a bullet projectile that had been fired at Mr. Davis by his attacker. Yet they
thoroughly searched the inside of Mr. Davis’ house where the attacker never went. The falsely used the results of this search to claim shoes found in Mr. Davis’ house contained blood to obtain Mr. Davis’ arrest warrant. The shoes had mud on them. This is instructive because it foreshadows the double standard and the bad faith on the part of the State that would permeate the entire case. If it was potentially helpful for the State, it was collected, tested and preserved. If it was exculpatory, it was usually either not collected or not preserved.

The pattern shown by the Exhibit – Evidence Tracking Spreadsheet is compelling. Generally, the APD’s various officers collected the evidence and sent it to the GBI for analysis. Once this evidence was tested, Lt. S.K. Padgett (The APD Evidence and Property Room Commander) or others only known by initials on the coc reports went and signed for and picked up the evidence from the GBI. After that the evidence disappears. There is no record that this evidence was even checked in to the APD Evidence Room despite numerous requests from Mr. Davis.

Without explanation, “3 Bags of Crime Lab Evidence” show up on 6/9/2003 in the APD system with Det. Marcel Walker’s name attached to it. What is in the bags is unknown because the documentation is so poor. As well, Det. Walker failed to show up and explain the evidence at two of Mr. Davis’ Motion for New Trial hearings despite being lawfully served twice. By the time Mr. Davis is indicted in November 2005, only a pair of Mr. Davis’ shoes, a melted candle, a paint
sample and Mr. Davis’ shotgun remain. The Porsche fingerprints and all the crime lab evidence disappeared without documentation or explanation.

Atlanta Fire Dept. and Case #96-52726

The case with the Atlanta Fire Dept. is as well unexplainable. AFD in conjunction with the APD collected numerous items at the fire at the victim’s residence in Atlanta on 12/11/96. This included but not limited to the alleged murder weapon (9mm Beretta), 9mm cartridges and spent casings, a 9mm magazine, blood and biologicals from the victim (the victim’s blood contained cocaine metabolites), a Browning 20 gauge shotgun, burned debris, watches, stereo equipment and many other miscellaneous items. As well, certain items, like an AK47 Assault Rifle, were found but neither collected for evidence or tested for firing.

The evidence collected was sent to the GBI for testing. After the testing is complete, the GBI sends the evidence back the AFD via UPS on 3/15/99 and 4/19/99. An AFD employee named Linda Tolbert signed for the shipments. However, there is no evidence log or any other documentation to say that this evidence was ever even logged in to the AFD evidence room. Ms. Tolbert testified that she had no idea what happened. Again, the evidence just disappeared. No formal investigation was done despite the loss of firearms. No one was held accountable. Material evidence was lost without a trace.

Fulton County DA’s Office

Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard took over this case on January 1, 1997 and has had the responsibility for investigating and prosecuting this case over the 10 years it took to take Mr. Davis to trial. Ultimately, he and the original A.D.A Joe Burford and Cold Case A.D.A. Sheila Ross as well as the FCDA Investigator Carter Jackson all are responsible for the evidence in the case.

It is quite telling that all the evidence that the prosecutors deemed inculpatory was preserved and fully tested. It was completely differently than the rest of the evidence. The State preserved apparently in lockboxes the evidence they deemed inculpatory. This evidence included a so-called “gas blower note”, letters Mr. Davis wrote to his ex-wife Megan Lee, his ex-wife’s answering machine message tape and a video tape of answering machine messages left for his private investigator, Jim Daws, which was recorded in a grand jury hearing. All of these items were carefully preserved and presented

a trial against Mr. Davis. Handwriting recognition was done and writings were analyzed. Experts were brought to trial to testify about these objects. The evidence testing and preservation process worked perfectly when the State wanted it to. The process was completely disregarded in the case of the Porsche fingerprints that did not match Mr. Davis and went untested through AFIS. The same goes with much of the other evidence. The evidence testing and preservation process was almost completely disregarded concerning evidence that could have exonerated Mr. Davis.

Summary of Claim

Overall, Mr. Davis’ constitutional rights to due process and to present a meaningful defense have. been taken away by the State’s non-preservation of constitutionally material evidence in this case. All of the agencies that handled evidence in this case failed to follow standard procedure or even common sense when handling material evidence. Only the State’s version of pictures, testimony and selective test results were available at trial. Mr. Davis was never able to touch, analyze, test or photograph the evidence. In most cases, Mr. Davis did not even know of the existence of the evidence until discovery was turned over for trial. His own experts and defense team was forced to defend Mr. Davis against phantom evidence, missing documentation and uncontestable testimony. This level of non-preservation cannot and has not been explained innocently. An act of God or the function of standard procedure did not cause these losses. These were an incredible and unexplainable set of completely separate incidents involving dozens of State actors. All of these people are separately and collectively responsible for not preserving the material evidence because they disregarded established procedures and processes.

Relief Requested

The relief that is requested is a complete federal independent investigation to be conducted on all material evidence collected in the case. As well, it is requested that all responsible parties be reprimanded, prosecuted and punished as allowed by law or administrative remedy.