Prosecutorial Misconduct

Felony Drug Use by Prosecutor Abramson and Cover-up

In this case, cocaine and ecstasy use by then Fulton County Assistant District Attorney, Gayle Abramson during her undercover interaction and investigation of Scott in 2004 and 2005 created a personal stake for Fulton County prosecutors to convict Scott in this case.

As documented in numerous articles in the Atlanta Journal Constitution (www.ajc.com) and in trial testimony (located in the Evidence Vault) from both Scott’s trial and the Brian Nichol’s trial, Fulton County DA Paul Howard, ADA Sheila Ross, ADA Rand Cshey and Atlanta Detective Rickee Chambers heard credible, specific and verifiable evidence recorded during a secret wiretap of Scott and his friends/family conducted in April of 2005. These secret recordings detailed the then ADA Abramson’s repeated use of cocaine both in Atlanta (Fulton County) and in California while she both had a relationship with one of Scott’s California friends and began a secret investigation of Scott.

During these secret recordings, prosecutors clearly heard the details of Ms. Abramson’s initiative in providing and using cocaine with at least five different individuals in October of 2004. The prosecutors’ discovery and recording of those crimes immediately became a problem and conflict of interest because as it turned out, Ms. Abramson and her then fiancé and now husband, ADA Rand Cshey, both were in California conducting the wiretap with Detective Chambers. ADA Sheila Ross was the lead prosecutor on the team and was managing the investigation.

Further complicating matters for prosecutors, ADA Cshey was a specialist in prosecuting narcotics cases and Ms. Abramson had been the lead prosecutor in the Brian Nichols rape case that was happening when Nichols escaped from the Fulton County Courthouse killing 4 people.

Instead of investigating the crimes of Ms. Abramson, prosecutors did nothing. As detailed in testimony during Scott’s trial and the Brian Nichols trial, the prosecutors’ stories are inconsistent, nonsensical and not true.

DA Paul Howard testified during Scott’s trial that he listened to “none” of the calls but that Sheila Ross and Rand Cshey did. Three years later in the Brian Nichols trial, Howard changed his story saying he listened to “some” of the calls and determined they were fabricated. He claims Scott and friends concocted the stories also saying they knew they were being recorded. His changing testimony and his claims of fabrication are false and misleading.

Did he listen to the calls or not? It can’t be both ways. Howard has a problem with either answer though because he conducted no investigation into the serious crimes committed by his employee that was involved in two high profile cases and still hasn’t today. Howard, along with Ross, Csehy and Chambers, had to justify doing nothing because they knew Ms. Abramson’s crimes jeopardized both cases and especially Howard’s political future. They bet that their best choice was to ignore these crimes essentially in an effort to cover them up because they knew, and have so far been correct, that no one would hold them accountable for not investigating and prosecuting one of their own. It’s the double standard we read about everyday.

Howard’s duplicity doesn’t work when one compares his changing testimony. He likely realized that he couldn’t claim the allegations were fabricated without listening to some of the calls. Howard, Csehy and Ross, however, refused to discuss the content of the calls in their testimony in the Brian Nichols trial due to the wiretap’s status of being sealed. Howard’s claim of fabrication is not credible when more than one of Scott Davis’s friends admit to Scott they were using cocaine provided by Ms. Abramson. Is it believable to say someone knew they were being recorded by law enforcement yet admit to crimes? The Nichol’s trial judge, Honorable Judge Bodiford, decided not to unseal them and the prosecutors hid behind that.

Read all the testimony of Howard, Ross and Csehy and make your own evaluation. It is clear, however, that they are evasive, combative and untruthful. Howard doesn’t investigate felonies committed because he believes it will harm his cases and knows he can get away with it. Csehy uses marital privilege to not discuss his wife’s crimes and the now Gail Abramson-Csehy takes the 5th. The Csehys do this after nastily denying the allegations in a press release and after Ms. Abramson lambasted Brian Nichols for his drug use on CNN’s special report about the courthouse shootings.

In the end, the only thing Howard had to do was ask Ms. Abramson if the allegations were true because in 2006 Ms. Abramson admitted all the allegations to Scott’s attorneys in an interview. Csehy also admitted he knew of Gayle’s drug use in an interview. Howard apparently never even asked, according to Abramson.

As you can also see in Csehy’s and Abramson ‘s interview with Scott’s attorney, APD Detective Chamber’s held a press conference in Palo Alto, California during the wiretap. In this press conference, Chambers lied to the press saying an indictment was imminent, DNA pointed to Scott and that the alleged murder weapon could be linked to Scott. It was all false! Prosecutors Sheila Ross and Paul Howard denied knowing Chambers was conducting the press conference or authorizing it…this denial was made in later testimony. Csehy’s and Abramson’s interview clearly shows Ross did know what Detective Chambers planned to do in California. Chambers also testified that prosecutors knew. All of them are guilty of intentionally and knowingly putting false allegations in the news in an effort to influence potential jurors who might later convict Scott and smear Scott’s name. The misleading information given to the press was accepted as fact and repeated in the press over and over again.

Why the Misconduct Matters

If one reads all the testimony, newspaper articles and other details about the web of misconduct located in the Evidence Vault, you will see all of these Fulton County prosecutors not investigating and not prosecuting serious felonies committed by one of their own, Gayle Abramson.

Ross admitted to listening to all the calls but testified that investigating these crimes was “not her job.” Howard only had to turn his head the other way and he believed no one would care about these crimes because Abramson was one of them.

Finally, it is compelling that these crimes by Abramson were revealed on the wiretap in April, 2005 and in the exact same timeframe vital evidence including the Porsche fingerprints that were not Scott’s, disappeared. This is no coincidence.

Ms. Abramson-Csehy has not been prosecuted for her drug crimes. Neither the U.S. Attorney nor the State Bar of Georgia has investigated Ms. Abramson-Csehy’s conduct. Nor have they investigated Howard’s changing stories or his refusal to investigate these serious crimes despite the fact Ms. Abramson admitted the crimes and Judge Bodiford made a judicial ruling that she used the drugs.

Most importantly, Ms. Ross and Det. Chambers were allowed to prosecute Scott’s case despite the huge conflict of interest that they had in working with Ms. Abramson during and after they listened to all of the allegations of serious felonies that have now been proven true. This after all was happening during the heat of investigating Scott’s case and during the decision whether or not to indict Scott after 9 years. This conflict of interest should have disqualified prosecutors and should have been disclosed to the jury to impeach the credibility of Det. Chambers and the State. The State’s actions concerning this throws the proecution of Scott Davis in a huge shadow of doubt. Had the jury known, they could have used it to determine if the State’s investigation was in fact tainted.

Other Misconduct

Other Misconduct also permeated this case. At every turn in the case, evidence shows prosecutors taking short cuts, minipulating facts, and even breaking laws to get what they wanted in order to convict Scott.

1. Courtroom CamerasDuring jury deliberations, it was discovered that D.A. Paul Howard had a direct feed to his office of video and audio through CBS’ courtroom cameras. Neither the defense team nor the judge was aware of the feed. Howard had informed neither of this.No one had given Howard permission for this feed as a CBS lawyer testified in court, despite Howard’s affidavit stating so. Howard could hear from the comfort of his office, all the audio and see the video of everything the cameras captured. All of this in violation of Rule 22 which sets out the rules for courtroom cameras.Howard and prosecutor Ross stated that they heard nothing privilaged through this feed, but the fact that Howard never divulged the feed in the first place provides little comfort as to his assurances. Although nothing could easily be found on CBS’ tapes captured by cameras, CBS admitted that not all that was transmitted to Howard’s office was captured on tape.Beyond the deception and the question of what was actually heard, there is a question of fair play involved. Prosecutors are already at an advantage in court because of their offices being virtually next door. They also have the huge advantage of the vast resources of the entire State behind them. Why should Howard be allowed a private feed to direct his asistants, real time, in court?Howard can communicate with his assistants through cell phones and Blackberrys. He can send case law and research real time via the State’s wi-fi network. The defense has none of this. Will Howard have a team of lawyers and experts watching the court proceedings via a web conference and assisting prosecutors as the case proceeds?

   At a minimum, defense lawyers should be notified and asked for approval or given the opportunity to have a live feed in their offices.

   This misconduct has been hardly publicized except in an article by the AJC. The TV media has not publicized it and in fact has blocked Scott’s defense team from interviewing cameramen as they were responsible for allowing the feed. However, a cameraman on the crew told defense team members off the record that Howard and his assistants did in fact record the proceedings and reviewed them at night.

   Do you have evidence of this? Submit a lead.

2. Misleading Court Pleadings and Media StatementsThe case started out with Scott’s arrest warrant in 1996 which contained misleading or false statements and the practice has continued through the case.In 1996, Det. Chambers got an arrest warrant saying Scott’s shoes had blood on them. This was not true. It was mud. Chambrs also claimed Scott was the first person to reveal Coffin’s cause of death as a gunshot. This was also untrue. Megan divulged Coffin had ben “shot in the head”. Chambers didn’t bother to investigate fully.In 2005, Chambers and Howard submitted a signed affidavit to obtain a wiretap on Scott’s phones. The document was full of falsehoods and misleading statements. They claimed there was an ongoing criminal enterprise, a requirement to get the wiretap, yet there was no such evidence and never was.They claimed they still possessed the alleged murder weapon yet they knew it to be lost and in fact could not be nor ever have they ever been able to provide any evidence tying it to Scott. They named alleged “co-conspirators” with not one shred of evidence to support that claim. The entire document was concocted simply to get the wiretap.Chambers then held a press conference in Palo Alto, California, claiming knowingly false statements such as DNA tied Scott to the crime and evidence from the alleged murder weapon tying Scott to the crime. It was blatently false and against all ethical standards. It was meant to falsely convince the community, Scott’s friends and associates, that he was .false information and even accusing him of other non-existent crimes.

   Proecutors claimed Chambers was a “renegade” who did this on his own but as discussed above, Prosecutor Ross and Csehy knew all about it and did nothing except implicitly give approval.

   Howard also mislead the media claiming Scott had threated Coffin in “notes” written by Scott. This was patently false. Scott wrote no notes threatening anyone.

Summary

The list of miscomduct and misleading behavior and words of the prosecutors and police is staggering. Dozens of more examples can be found in testimony and in court pleadings. Much of this can be read on this website and in the Evidence Vault.

The one thing clear is that Scott’s case has been far from just, by any reasonable standard. Unfortunately, the jury never heard most of this information.

If you know of more misconduct, submit a lead and help us get Scott a fair trial.