You are on page 1of 47

Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 1 of 47 PageID #: 487

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

GLENN FORD, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Case No. 5:15-cv-544
v. )
) Hon. S. Maurice Hicks,
The CITY OF SHREVEPORT, DON ) District Judge
ASHLEY, GARY ALDERMAN, )
GARY PITTMAN, EVERETT T. ) Hon. Judge Hayes,
RUSHING, the ESTATE OF BILLY ) Magistrate Judge
LOCKWOOD, FRANK DATCHER, )
GLYNN MITCHELL, R. PRICE, )
POLICE DOES 1-10, ESTATE OF )
GEORGE MCCORMICK, CADDO )
PARISH, PAUL CARMOUCHE, in )
his official capacity as District )
Attorney of Caddo Parish, DALE )
COX, in his official capacity as )
District Attorney of Caddo Parish, )
CADDO PARISH DISTRICT )
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, and ABC ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
INSURANCE COMPANIES, )
)
Defendants. )

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff GLENN FORD, by and through his attorneys, complains of

Defendants the CITY OF SHREVEPORT, DON ASHLEY, GARY ALDERMAN,

GARY PITTMAN, EVERETT T. RUSHING, the ESTATE OF BILLY LOCKWOOD,

FRANK DATCHER, GLYNN MITCHELL, R. PRICE, POLICE DOES 1-10,

ESTATE OF GEORGE MCCORMICK, CADDO PARISH, PAUL CARMOUCHE, in

his official capacity as District Attorney of Caddo Parish, DALE COX, in his official
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 2 of 47 PageID #: 488

capacity as District Attorney of Caddo Parish, CADDO PARISH DISTRICT

ATTORNEY’S OFFICE,1 and ABC INSURANCE COMPANIES, as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. In 1984, Glenn Ford was convicted of a murder he did not commit.

Today, evidence currently being kept secret by law enforcement officials in

Louisiana demonstrates without question that Glenn Ford should never have been

arrested, let alone prosecuted for the murder.

2. Probable cause never existed to arrest and prosecute Glenn Ford for

this crime.

3. On March 10, 2014, Plaintiff was finally exonerated more than thirty

years after he was arrested—when he was released, Glenn Ford was the longest-

serving death row inmate in the United States, spending 29 years, 3 months, and 5

days in solitary confinement. Mr. Ford has Stage Four lung cancer and may not

have long to live—Defendants have therefore taken most of Plaintiff’s adult life

away from him for a crime he did not commit.

4. Mr. Ford’s arrest, detention, prosecution, conviction, and

imprisonment were the product of unconstitutional and unlawful efforts by the

Shreveport Police officers named in this complaint, acting individually and in

concert with one another and others unknown, under municipal and parish policies

and practices, to use any means necessary to gain a conviction.

1 Pending before this Court is a Motion to Dismiss the Caddo Parish District Attorney’s Office
based on case law that provides that the District Attorney in his or her official capacity is the proper
party. Plaintiff includes the Caddo Parish District Attorney’s Office as a party in this First Amended
Complaint to preserve his claims in the event that this Court or an appellate court determines that
the Office itself is the proper party.

2
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 3 of 47 PageID #: 489

5. Defendant Ashley, a lead detective in the case, admitted under oath

that, “the chief goal [of a Shreveport Police investigation] is to identify any suspects,

defendants, and then develop evidence that would support an arrest of those

identified suspects.”

6. The Shreveport Police officers did exactly as Defendant Ashley

admitted they do—they identified Glenn Ford as the perpetrator and manufactured

evidence against him, in violation of the United States Constitution and Louisiana

law. In addition, the Shreveport Police officers named in this complaint destroyed

and suppressed exculpatory evidence that would have shown Mr. Ford to be

innocent. These police officers did all of this pursuant to the policies and practices of

the Shreveport Police Department and the City of Shreveport.

7. Pleading in the alternative, employees and representatives of the

Caddo Parish District Attorney’s Office knew of some or all of the exculpatory

evidence described in this complaint. Instead of turning that evidence over to Mr.

Ford and his defense attorneys prior to Mr. Ford’s criminal proceedings, those

employees and representatives of the Caddo Parish District Attorney’s Office

suppressed the evidence, acting pursuant to the policies and practices of the Caddo

Parish District Attorney’s Office, which deprived Mr. Ford of his rights under the

United States Constitution and Louisiana law.

8. As a direct result of Defendants’ intentional, bad faith, willful, wanton,

reckless, and deliberately indifferent acts and omissions, Mr. Ford sustained

injuries and damages including the loss of his freedom for almost thirty years,

3
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 4 of 47 PageID #: 490

personal injuries, pain and suffering, severe mental anguish, emotional distress,

loss of income, inadequate medical care, humiliation, indignities and

embarrassment, degradation, permanent loss of natural psychological development;

and restrictions on all forms of personal freedom including but not limited to diet,

sleep, personal contact, educational opportunity, vocational opportunity, athletic

opportunity, personal fulfillment, sexual activity, family relations, reading,

television, movies, travel, enjoyment, and freedom of speech and expression.

9. This civil action seeks money damages and other relief for these

extraordinary injuries and losses suffered by Glenn Ford at the hands of

Defendants.

PARTIES

10. Plaintiff Glenn Ford is an African-American man who spent nearly 30

years of his life in solitary confinement for a crime he did not commit.

11. Defendants Don Ashley, Gary Alderman, Everett Rushing, Gary

Pittman, the Estate of Billy Lockwood, Frank Datcher, Glynn Mitchell, R. Price,

and Police Does 1-10 (collectively “Law Enforcement Defendants”) are present or

former Shreveport Police officers, who are sued in their individual capacities.

12. Defendant City of Shreveport is a Louisiana municipality that is or

was the employer of the Law Enforcement Defendants. In addition, each of the Law

Enforcement Defendants acted as an agent of the City of Shreveport. The City of

Shreveport is liable for all torts committed by the Law Enforcement Defendants

while employed by the City of Shreveport under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

4
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 5 of 47 PageID #: 491

Defendant City of Shreveport is additionally responsible for the policies and

practices of the Shreveport Police Department.

13. Defendant Paul Carmouche was, at times pertinent to this Complaint,

the District Attorney for Caddo Parish. Defendant Carmouche is being sued in his

official capacity because at times relevant to this Complaint, he was the official

responsible for the prosecution of Glenn Ford and he was a final policymaker

responsible for his own actions and the actions of his subordinate employees of the

Caddo Parish District Attorney’s Office. As such, he is additionally responsible for

the policies and practices of the Caddo Parish District Attorney’s Office, and the

Caddo Parish District Attorney’s Office is responsible for actions taken by its final

policymakers.

14. Defendant Dale Cox is the current District Attorney for Caddo Parish.

He is being sued in his official capacity as the successor in office and liability to

District Attorney Carmouche.

15. Defendant Caddo Parish District Attorney’s Office was, at times

pertinent to this Complaint, the office responsible for the prosecution of Glenn Ford.

16. Defendants Carmouche, Cox, and Caddo Parish District Attorney’s

Office are referred to collectively in this Complaint as the “District Attorney.”

17. Defendant George McCormick was, at relevant times herein, a person

who represented himself as an expert in forensic pathology and was then the

recently elected Coroner of Caddo Parish. He was involved in the unlawful

5
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 6 of 47 PageID #: 492

investigation and conviction of Plaintiff. He engaged in the conduct complained of in

the course and scope of his employment and is sued in his individual capacity.

18. Defendant Caddo Parish is a Louisiana municipality that is or was the

employer of Defendant McCormick. In addition, Defendant McCormick acted as an

agent of Caddo Parish, which is liable for all torts committed by McCormick while

employed by Caddo Parish under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Defendant

Caddo Parish is additionally responsible for the policies and practices of the Caddo

Parish Coroner’s Office.

19. Defendants ABC Insurance Companies 1-10 are as yet unknown

insurance companies, who, upon information and belief, have issued and currently

have in effect one or more policies of insurance covering one or more of the

Defendants named herein.

20. At all relevant times herein, each Defendant was and is a “person” for

purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and acted under color of law and within the scope of

his employment to deprive plaintiff of his constitutional rights.

21. Defendants’ constitutional violations and other acts were the

proximate cause of the injuries and damages suffered by Glenn Ford.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

22. This action is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Louisiana law to

redress the Defendants’ tortious conduct and their deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights

secured by the United States Constitution.

23. This Court has jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s federal claims under 28 U.S.C.

6
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 7 of 47 PageID #: 493

§ 1331 and supplemental jurisdiction of his state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. §

1367.23.

24. Venue in this Court is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)—the majority

of the Defendants reside in this judicial district, and the events and omissions

giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred within this judicial district.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

I. The Investigation of Isadore Rozeman’s Murder

25. On the afternoon of November 5, 1983, Isadore Rozeman was found

dead in his jewelry and watch repair shop in Shreveport, Louisiana. He was shot

once in the back of the head with a .38 caliber bullet.

26. To this day, the crime remains unsolved. By focusing exclusively on the

wrong man, Defendants have let the real killer remain at large for three decades.

27. Mr. Ford’s name was allegedly first raised to the Law Enforcement

Defendants by Mr. Rozeman’s neighbors, children who told Shreveport police that

Mr. Ford did yard work for Mr. Rozeman and that they recalled seeing him the day

of the murder.

28. In the middle of the night after the crime, Mr. Ford was told by his

father that the police wanted to talk to him. Mr. Ford voluntarily went to the police

station at approximately 2:00 a.m. on November 6, 1983.

29. Mr. Ford cooperated completely with police—after an initial interview,

Mr. Ford agreed to be fingerprinted, photographed and tested for gunshot residue.

7
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 8 of 47 PageID #: 494

He also consented to a search of his room. A detective described Ford as being “very

cooperative.”

30. Mr. Ford provided police information despite the fact that he was

afraid to identify anyone because the people responsible would kill him.

31. On November 8, 1983, after Law Enforcement Defendants purportedly

discovered pawn shop receipts that they suggested implicated Mr. Ford, the Law

Enforcement Defendants arrested Mr. Ford for receiving (or possessing) stolen

things.

II. Law Enforcement Defendants Manufacture and Suppress
Evidence In an Effort to Frame Mr. Ford

A. Multiple Reports that Corroborate Mr. Ford and Implicate Other Suspects are
Buried

32. Within a week of the Rozeman murder, Sergeant Glynn Mitchell of the

Shreveport Police Department received a tip from a confidential informant that

implicated Jake and Henry Robinson as the murderers.

33. The informant told Mitchell that Jake Robinson still had the murder

weapon and had also shot a man named Ralph Frazier.

34. Defendant Mitchell passed this information to Defendants Ashley and

Alderman, who were conducting the murder investigation.

35. Defendants Ashley and Alderman also learned that multiple

crimestoppers’ reports confirmed the same information as the confidential

informant.

8
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 9 of 47 PageID #: 495

36. Defendants Ashley and Alderman contacted Ralph Frazier, who did

confirm that he had been shot, corroborating the informant’s and crimestoppers’

reports.

37. Defendants Ashley and Alderman, and other Law Enforcement

Defendants, suppressed this information—they suppressed the police reports that

said that Jake Robinson still had the murder weapon less than a week after the

murder and that Jake Robinson had also used the weapon to shoot Ralph Frazier

shortly before Rozeman was murdered. They also suppressed the reports that

verified that Frazier had indeed been shot.

B. Police Suppress a Second Report That One of the Robinson Brothers Had the
Murder Weapon at a Relative’s House

38. After receiving multiple reports about the Robinson brothers, and that

they likely still had the murder weapon, Defendants Ashley and Alderman set out

to find them.

39. Defendants Ashley and Alderman went to the home of Jake and Henry

Robinson’s aunt, uncle, and cousin. Jake and Henry’s cousin, Jeffrey Robinson, told

Defendants Ashley and Alderman that days after the murder he saw Henry remove

the likely murder weapon from under a mattress and put it in his suitcase.

40. Defendants Ashley and Alderman recorded this information in a police

report, but they and other Law Enforcement Defendants failed to disclose that

report to Mr. Ford and his attorneys.

9
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 10 of 47 PageID #: 496

C. Police Hide More Evidence about the Robinson Brothers

41. Law Enforcement Defendants also did not disclose that Mr. Ford had

reason to fear the Robinsons and Larry Thompson, who police suspected was

working with the Robinsons. Thompson’s criminal expertise was bank and jewelry

store robberies and Rozeman’s home was also a jewelry shop. Thompson was a

known murderer.

42. Moreover, Detective Ashley recorded, though never disclosed, that the

Robinsons had a reputation for being mean and brutal, and that they were feared

by people who lived near them.

43. Law Enforcement Defendants never disclosed that when Henry

Robinson was arrested in San Diego he was found to have bullet proof vests and

handcuffs in his suitcase. This evidence provides additional support to Jeffrey

Robinson’s statement (also withheld) that he saw Henry Robinson take something

he thought might be a handgun from under the mattress and put it in his suitcase.

44. Law Enforcement Defendants also did not disclose that San Diego

Police reported that a handgun was likely taken from Henry Robinson in San Diego.

D. Police Manufacture Witness Evidence against Mr. Ford

45. From the murder on November 5, 1983 through February 1984, Law

Enforcement Defendants were unable to find physical evidence to tie anyone to the

murder. Instead, they began to manufacture witness evidence against Mr. Ford, the

man they identified as the suspect.

10
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 11 of 47 PageID #: 497

46. On February 9, 1984, Law Enforcement Defendants interviewed Jake

Robinson’s girlfriend, Marvella Brown.

47. According to Defendants, Ms. Brown said that Mr. Ford had arrived at

her apartment around noon the day of the Rozeman murder and left with the

Robinsons, only to return with a sack containing jewelry. Ms. Brown also allegedly

stated that Mr. Ford carried a .22 pistol and that Jake Robinson had a .38 revolver.

48. This statement was fed to Ms. Brown by Law Enforcement Defendants

to frame Mr. Ford for the crime since he was a convenient target. Marvella Brown

later testified that Law Enforcement Defendants had fabricated some of her

responses. Law Enforcement Defendants suppressed this fabrication.

49. Three months later, in May 1984, Marvella Brown recanted her

statement, but Law Enforcement Defendants failed to disclose that recantation to

anyone, including Mr. Ford’s attorneys.

50. Coincidentally, also in February 1984, Law Enforcement Defendants in

general and Defendants Alderman and Ashley specifically located an informant,

Donnie L. Thomas, who they claimed implicated Mr. Ford in Rozeman’s murder.

51. This statement, too, was fed to Mr. Thomas by Law Enforcement

Defendants to frame Mr. Ford for the crime since he was a convenient target to

“solve” the crime. Law Enforcement Defendants suppressed this fabrication.

52. Law Enforcement Defendants never disclosed to anyone that they

manufactured these witness statements.

11
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 12 of 47 PageID #: 498

. 53. If Plaintiff had been given access to information that Law Enforcement

Defendants were fabricating evidence against him from witnesses, it would have

been powerful evidence of his innocence and critical evidence by which he could

have impeached the individuals who testified falsely against him and also the Law

Enforcement Defendants who testified that the evidence they had gathered in their

investigation pointed toward Plaintiff.

E. Further Steps to Frame Glenn Ford

54. Because Mr. Ford was innocent, Law Enforcement Defendants were

forced to contort the facts further to make them fit their suspect.

55. Initial police reports identified that Rozeman was alive at 2:30 p.m.

based on a telephone call between him and Dr. Ebrahim. Mr. Ford had an alibi

defense for a murder happening after that time. At trial, the State’s theory

changed—prosecutors argued that the murder happened between 12:00 p.m. and

1:00 p.m. Law Enforcement Defendants suppressed evidence that both Detective

Roy Don Watts and Officer Trant confirmed the report that Dr. Ebrahim spoke with

Rozeman at 2:30 p.m. and not between 12:00 and 1:00. This suppressed evidence

supported Mr. Ford’s theory of the case.

56. Separately, the only physical evidence that purported to tie Mr. Ford to

the crime scene was a whorl pattern fingerprint allegedly taken from a paper bag at

the scene. Whorl patterns are found on approximately 35% of people. Law

Enforcement Defendants failed to disclose to Mr. Ford or his attorneys that three

other suspects had whorl pattern fingerprints. This suppression was especially

12
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 13 of 47 PageID #: 499

detrimental to Mr. Ford because the State argued at trial that no other suspect had

whorl-patterned fingerprints.

57. Law Enforcement Defendants also destroyed important fingerprint

evidence. Because the paper bag found at the scene had a porous surface, the only

way to develop a fingerprint from the bag was by using chemicals. And the only way

to preserve such a print is to photograph the print. Billy Lockwood destroyed the

fingerprint evidence by not taking a photograph of it and then compounding this

destruction by not preserving the paper bag as evidence. Moreover, Law

Enforcement Defendants suppressed evidence about whether the victim could have

been the source of the print. Lockwood also failed to disclose where the print was

allegedly found on the paper bag. This destruction of evidence denied Mr. Ford the

opportunity to demonstrate that his fingerprints did not appear on the paper bag

and thus negate the only physical evidence that the State used against him.

58. In addition, Glenn Ford was initially identified as being near

Rozeman’s house around 1:00 p.m. on the day of the murder by neighborhood

children. Law Enforcement Defendants suppressed the exculpatory evidence

gathered during interviews with those children, which would have supported Mr.

Ford’s defense and could have been used to impeach State’s witnesses.

59. Law Enforcement Defendants suppressed that they interviewed the

children together, which likely led to the children inventing and reinforcing their

claims.

13
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 14 of 47 PageID #: 500

60. Law Enforcement Defendants suppressed that J.W. Nash said that he

saw Mr. Ford on the street at 1:00 p.m., which supported Mr. Ford’s defense;

61. Police fabricated and suppressed evidence by Chandra Nash, who

testified that she saw Ford alone in the alley on the day of the crime, and that she

saw no one else. But a police report from right after the murder documents that she

initially told Detective Mitchell that she had seen two individuals in the area the

day of the crime, but did not see Mr. Ford.

62. In addition, a witness saw Rozeman, the murder victim, argue with a

man he described as being “Mexican” and “Black” and the witness did not identify

that man as Mr. Ford. The Law Enforcement Defendants suppressed this evidence.

63. The Law Enforcement Defendants also had the names of other people

suspected of the murder, including one known as “sissy boy,” but they suppressed

the name of those alternative suspects.

III. Policies and Practices of the City of Shreveport, Shreveport Police
Department, Caddo Parish, and Caddo Parish Coroner’s Office

64. Despite actual and constructive notice that the Shreveport Police

Department’s custom, pattern and practice of promoting, facilitating, or condoning

improper, illegal, and unconstitutional investigative techniques, and failing to

adequately supervise, discipline and train its officers, was reasonably likely to lead

to constitutional violations similar to those perpetuated against Plaintiff, the

Department leadership continued to maintain those customs, patterns and practices

of deliberate indifference to the rights of the suspects.

14
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 15 of 47 PageID #: 501

65. Prior to and at the time of the unlawful investigation, prosecution, and

incarceration of Ford, Shreveport Police Department, through its final

policymakers, maintained a policy, custom, or pattern and practice of condoning

corruption, that included widespread investigative misconduct, including by failing

to supervise, discipline, and train its investigative officers.

66. Upon information and belief, the Shreveport Police Department’s

supervisors and policymakers also had actual and constructive notice of their

Department’s policy, custom, or pattern and practice of investigative misconduct

and failures to supervise and train through numerous cases and investigations that

took place prior to the investigation in this case. The misconduct committed in those

cases by Shreveport Police Department officers, including investigators involved in

the investigation of the murder of Isadore Rozeman, was actually or constructively

known to Shreveport Police Department’s supervisors and policymakers prior to the

Rozeman investigation—including by means of their direct participation in the

investigations—and, upon information and belief, Shreveport Police Department

supervisors and policymakers failed to train, supervise, discipline, or otherwise

remediate Shreveport Police Department investigators in response to such notice.

67. Further, upon information and belief, persons with final policymaking

authority for the Shreveport Police Department participated personally in the

misconduct described in this Complaint.

68. The Shreveport Police Department’s policy, custom, or pattern and

practice of investigative misconduct and failing to train and supervise officers in

15
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 16 of 47 PageID #: 502

lawful investigative techniques was reflected in the multiple acts of misconduct and

illegality committed by multiple officers and supervisors in relation to the Rozeman

investigation, as described above and below.

69. The final policymakers, policies, and practices of the Shreveport Police

Department are one and the same as the final policymakers, policies, and practices

of the City of Shreveport.

70. Despite actual and constructive notice that the Caddo Parish Coroner’s

Office’s custom, pattern and practice of promoting, facilitating, or condoning

improper, illegal, and unconstitutional investigative techniques, and failing to

adequately supervise, discipline and train its officers, was reasonably likely to lead

to constitutional violations similar to those perpetuated against Plaintiff, the its

leadership continued to maintain those customs, patterns and practices of

deliberate indifference to the rights of the suspects.

71. Prior to and at the time of the unlawful investigation, prosecution, and

incarceration of Ford, Shreveport, Caddo Parish Coroner, through its final

policymakers, maintained a policy, custom, or pattern and practice of condoning

corruption, that included widespread investigative misconduct, including by failing

to supervise, discipline, and train its staff.

72. Upon information and belief, the Caddo Parish Coroner’s supervisors

and policymakers also had actual and constructive notice of its policy, custom, or

pattern and practice of investigative misconduct and failures to supervise and train

through numerous cases and investigations that took place prior to the

16
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 17 of 47 PageID #: 503

investigation in this case. The misconduct committed in those cases by Caddo

Parish Coroner staff, including those involved in the investigation of the murder of

Isadore Rozeman, was actually or constructively known to Caddo Parish Coroner’s

supervisors and policymakers prior to the Rozeman investigation—including by

means of their direct participation in the investigations—and, upon information and

belief, Caddo Parish Coroner’s supervisors and policymakers failed to train,

supervise, discipline, or otherwise remediate staff in response to such notice.

73. Further, upon information and belief, persons with final policymaking

authority for the Caddo Parish Coroner’s Office participated personally in the

misconduct described in this Complaint.

74. The Caddo Parish Coroner’s policy, custom, or pattern and practice of

investigative misconduct and failing to train and supervise staff in lawful

investigative techniques was reflected in the multiple acts of misconduct and

illegality committed by staff and supervisors in relation to the Rozeman

investigation, as described above and below.

75. The final policymakers, policies, and practices of the Caddo Parrish

Coroner’s office are one and the same as the final policymakers, policies, and

practices of the Caddo Parish.

IV. In the alternative, Prosecutors Working for the District
Attorney Manufacture Evidence and Suppress
Evidence in an Effort to Frame Mr. Ford

76. Plaintiff pleads in the alternative, as discussed in paragraphs 76-83

and 178-197, below, some or all of the exculpatory and impeachment evidence,

17
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 18 of 47 PageID #: 504

including fabricated evidence, discussed above and below, was known to employees

of the District Attorney at the time of Glenn Ford’s criminal trial and was not

turned over by prosecutors to Mr. Ford and his criminal defense attorneys.

77. This evidence was suppressed by final policymakers for the District

Attorney and also by other prosecutors pursuant to the policies and practices of the

District Attorney.

78. Despite actual and constructive notice, the District Attorney had a

custom, pattern and practice of promoting, facilitating, or condoning improper,

illegal, and suppression of exculpatory and impeachment evidence, and failed to

adequately supervise, discipline and train its prosecutors. Despite being aware that

this was reasonably likely to lead to constitutional violations similar to those

perpetuated against Plaintiff, the District Attorney continued to maintain those

customs, patterns and practices of deliberate indifference to the rights of

defendants.

79. Prior to and at the time of the unlawful prosecution, the District

Attorney, through its final policymakers, maintained a policy, custom, or pattern

and practice of condoning corruption, that included widespread prosecutorial

misconduct, including by failing to supervise, discipline, and train its prosecutors.

80. Examples of the repeated constitutional violations caused by the

District Attorney’s policies and practices include but are by no means limited to the

following:

18
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 19 of 47 PageID #: 505

a. In the prosecution at issue in State v. Palmer, 344 So. 2d 964, 968 (La.

1977), prosecutors for the District Attorney withheld latent

fingerprints from murder scene.

b. In the prosecution at issue in State v. Cass, 356 So. 2d 936, 944 (La.

1977), prosecutors for the District Attorney withheld evidence that

eyewitness identified someone other than defendant as the

perpetrator.

c. In the prosecution at issue in State v. Langendorfer, 389 So. 2d 1271,

1277 (La. 1980), prosecutors for the District Attorney suppressed a

rape victim’s statement made to police after she was attacked, in which

the victim described a long conversation she had with defendant prior

to the alleged rape.

d. In the prosecution at issue in State v. Davenport, 399 So. 2d 201 (La.

1981), prosecutors for the District Attorney withheld impeachment

evidence from the defense.

e. In the prosecution at issue in State v. McLeland, 456 So. 2d 633, 637

(La. Ct. App. 1984), prosecutors for the District Attorney withheld that

witness who identified defendant as robber at trial had only been

shown photograph of one person—the defendant—during the police

investigation, and had never been shown a line-up.

f. In the prosecution at issue in State v. Robertson, 511 So. 2d 1237, 1242

(La. Ct. App. 1987), prosecutors for the District Attorney suppressed

19
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 20 of 47 PageID #: 506

victim’s description of her attacker that directly contradicted the

physical characteristics of the defendant on trial.

g. In the prosecution at issue in State v. Barker, 628 So. 2d 168, 176 (La.

Ct. App. 1993), prosecutors for the District Attorney withheld

exculpatory evidence that a rape victim and her sister colluded to give

the police false statements.

h. In the prosecution at issue in State v. Henderson, 31,986 (La. App. 2

Cir. 8/18/99), 740 So. 2d 240, prosecutors for the District Attorney

suppressed two witnesses’ grand jury testimony after defense filed a

motion before trial for the transcripts.

i. In the prosecution at issue in State v. Hampton, 98-0331 (La. 4/23/99),

750 So. 2d 867, 883, prosecutors for the District Attorney failed to

hand over transcript of grand jury testimony from eye-witness to

robbery/murder, which said that someone other than the defendant

was the murderer.

81. Upon information and belief, the District Attorney’s supervisors and

policymakers also had actual and constructive notice of their Department’s policy,

custom, or pattern and practice of prosecutorial misconduct and failures to

supervise and train through numerous cases and prosecutions that took place prior

to this case. The misconduct committed in those cases by the District Attorney’s

prosecutors, including prosecutors involved in the case of the murder of Isadore

Rozeman, was actually or constructively known to the District Attorney’s

20
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 21 of 47 PageID #: 507

supervisors and policymakers before the Rozeman prosecution—including by means

of their direct participation in the prosecutions—and, upon information and belief,

the District Attorney supervisors and policymakers failed to train, supervise,

discipline, or otherwise remediate prosecutors in response to such notice.

82. Further, upon information and belief, persons with final policymaking

authority for the District Attorney participated personally in the prosecution of

Plaintiff.

83. The District Attorney’s policy, custom, or pattern and practice of

prosecutorial misconduct and failing to train and supervise prosecutors in lawful

techniques was reflected in the multiple acts of misconduct and illegality committed

by multiple prosecutors and supervisors in relation to the Rozeman investigation, as

described above and below.

V. Prosecution of Glenn Ford

84. The case against Glenn Ford at trial was strictly circumstantial.

Exculpatory and impeachment evidence were the weapons that Mr. Ford’s defense

team needed to defeat the State’s circumstantial case.

85. Dr. George McCormick, a self-described “public witness” and parish

coroner, who never examined the body of the victim in this case, delivered opinions

on two crucial issues: the gunman’s dominant hand and the victim’s time of death.

86. Defendant McCormick fabricated evidence that the victim was killed

by a left-handed gunman. Ford is left-handed, whereas both of the Robinson

brothers are right-handed.

21
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 22 of 47 PageID #: 508

87. Defendant McCormick also fabricated evidence that Mr. Rozeman had

been dead longer than an hour and probably two or more hours when paramedics

found the body at 3:30 p.m., and therefore the time of death was “consistent with

the time the defendant was at the scene of the crime.”

88. In addition, Pat Wojtkiewicz, a purported ballistics expert, also

testified for the State. Wojtkiewicz stated that using a Scanning Electron

Microscopy (“SEM”) he found, from Ford’s left hand, one particle unique to gunshot

residue and four particles characteristic of gunshot residue; and, from Ford’s right

hand, three particles characteristic of gunshot residue. This evidence was useless

under accepted principles of gunshot residue analysis.

89. The State also relied on the findings of Sergeant Billy Lockwood, a

fingerprint analyst who had never been qualified as an expert prior to Ford’s capital

murder trial. Lockwood testified that he was able to lift a single latent print from

the end of a paper bag left at the scene of the crime, ostensibly used to grasp the

gun that killed the victim. He testified that the latent print contained a “whorl”

type pattern and that Ford had such a pattern, whereas the Robinson brothers did

not. As stated above, this was false, but the defense had not been tendered the

evidence by Law Enforcement Defendants to contradict this testimony.

90. As a result of Law Enforcement Defendants’ misconduct, the all-white

jury convicted Glenn Ford of Rozeman’s murder. Without Defendants’ fabrication of

evidence and withholding of exculpatory evidence, Mr. Ford would never have been

convicted.

22
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 23 of 47 PageID #: 509

91. During the penalty phase of the trial, Dr. McCormick (who had not

examined the victim’s body) testified that “it was his expert opinion…that [a] duffel

bag was placed over Mr. Rozeman’s head to muffle the gunshot and to shield the

murderer from blood spatter.” Dr. McCormick proceeded to tell the jury what the

victim was thinking about “when the bag was placed over his head.”

92. At the conclusion of the penalty phase, the jury deliberated for two and

one-half hours before returning its recommendation for a death sentence. On

February 26, 1985, Glenn Ford was sentenced to die as punishment for a crime he

had not committed.

93. For reasons still unknown to Mr. Ford, the State dropped related

charges against Henry Robinson, Jake Robinson, and Lorenzo Starks after Ford

was convicted.

94. The Robinson brothers remained free. They are suspected of killing at

least four additional people after the murder of Mr. Rozeman.

VI. Post-Conviction Proceedings

95. Ford’s conviction was affirmed on appeal by the Louisiana Supreme

Court, though the court clearly was troubled by the adequacy of the State’s

evidence. Ford, 489 So.2d at 1254-57. The Court’s affirmance was not unanimous,

as one justice was “not convinced that a rational trier of fact could have found the

essential elements of the crime of first degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Ford, 489 So.2d at 1268 (Calogero, J., dissenting).

23
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 24 of 47 PageID #: 510

96. The United States Supreme Court granted Ford’s Petition for Writ of

Certiorari, and remanded for a hearing under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79

(1986). After a hearing in 1989, the state trial court found the use of peremptory

strikes to be legitimate; the Louisiana Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of

review, State v. Ford, 563 So.2d 873 (La. 1990); and the United States Supreme

Court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari, Ford v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 992

(1990).

97. From 1992 to 2005, Ford sought post-conviction relief, on grounds of

ineffective assistance of counsel, that the state suppressed material exculpatory

evidence, and that he was actually innocent.

98. During this process, Dr. Leroy Riddick, a Board Certified Forensic

Pathologist and Mobile County (Alabama) Medical Examiner demonstrated the

fabrication of Dr. McCormick’s assertion related to handedness of the murderer,

time of death, and the alleged placing of the duffel bag over the victim’s head.

99. Dr. Riddick also challenged Dr. McCormick’s opinion that the duffel

bag was placed over Mr. Rozeman’s head when he was shot. Dr. Riddick stated that

“there is evidence that that didn’t happen.” As Dr. Riddick pointed out, the crime

scene photos depicted the bag laying next to the victim’s head, exactly where it was

where the first responders found it. As Dr. Riddick put it, “I don't think the

assailant, after shooting him, would pull the bag off of his head and set it aside.”

Further, there was only a spot of blood on the bag, a point inconsistent with the

victim wearing the bag when he was shot since he would he would have bled inside

24
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 25 of 47 PageID #: 511

the bag. Finally, the victim’s glasses were on the floor instead of being inside the

bag.

100. During the post-conviction hearings, experts also concluded that the

gunshot residue evidence was of no relevance to the question of whether Ford shot

or handled a firearm because of the fact that the sample was collected some 12 to 14

hours after the commission of the crime, and that “with a living subject, the

probability that any residues that are found on the hand [are] related to a shooting

incident, has diminished to the point where it is no longer of any scientific value” –

especially when a sample is taken in a police station, a location full of ambient

gunshot residue.

101. Experts similarly undermined the fingerprint evidence provided by the

prosecution, showing that because Lockwood was unable to view the center of the

whorl print, it could have been left by Jake or Henry Robinson. The reliability of

Lockwood’s testimony was also compromised by his failure to follow standard

protocol for analysis and preservation of latent prints from a porous surface.

102. On October 19, 2009, the state district court denied Ford post-

conviction relief. On February 4, 2011, the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the

denial in a two-word order.

VII. Glenn Ford is Exonerated and Released

103. On March 10, 2014, the State filed a Motion to Vacate the Conviction

and the Sentence of Glen Ford, explaining that “credible evidence” had become

known to First Assistant District Attorney Dale G. Cox and Assistant District

25
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 26 of 47 PageID #: 512

Attorney Catherine Estopinal in late 2013 which “support[ed] a finding that Ford

was neither present at, nor a participant in, the robbery and murder of Isadore

Rozeman.” In the motion, the State claimed that “if the information had been within

the knowledge of the State, Ford might not even have been arrested or indicted for

this offense.”

104. The Motion to Vacate did not explain what the “credible evidence” is,

nor did it provide any substantiation of the date of its discovery.

105. Judge Ramona Emanuel signed an order granting the State’s Motion

to Vacate the Conviction and the Sentence of Glen Ford.

106. On March 11, 2014, Glenn Ford walked out of prison. Upon his release,

Ford was given $20 by the prison authorities. To this date, that $20 is the only

money he has received from the state for his 30 years in prison for a crime he did

not commit.

107. On June 10, 2014, the State dropped all charges against Ford.

CLAIMS

COUNT I – Against the Law Enforcement Defendants, the City of
Shreveport, McCormick, and Caddo Parish
42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Due Process

108. Plaintiff incorporates each paragraph of this Complaint as if fully

restated here.

109. As described in detail above, the Law Enforcement Defendants and

McCormick, while acting individually, jointly, and in conspiracy with one another,

as well as under color of law and within the scope of their employment, deprived

26
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 27 of 47 PageID #: 513

Plaintiff of his constitutional right to a fair trial, in violation of Plaintiff’s right to

due process.

110. In the manner described more fully above, the Law Enforcement

Defendants and McCormick destroyed and deliberately withheld exculpatory

evidence from Plaintiff and his criminal defense attorneys and from the District

Attorney, among others, thereby misleading and misdirecting the criminal

prosecution of Plaintiff.

111. In addition, the Law Enforcement Defendants and McCormick

fabricated and solicited false evidence, including testimony that they knew to be

false and perjured and fabricated police reports, implicating Plaintiff in the crime,

obtained Plaintiff’s conviction using that false evidence, and failed to correct

fabricated evidence that they knew to be false when it was used against Plaintiff at

his criminal trial.

112. In addition, the Law Enforcement Defendants and McCormick

destroyed, concealed, and fabricated additional evidence that is not yet known to

Plaintiff.

113. The Law Enforcement Defendants’ and McCormick’s misconduct

directly resulted in the unjust criminal conviction of Plaintiff, thereby denying his

constitutional right to a fair trial and due process guaranteed by the Fifth and

Fourteenth Amendments. Absent this misconduct, the prosecution of Plaintiff could

not have and would not have been pursued.

27
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 28 of 47 PageID #: 514

114. The misconduct described in this Count was objectively unreasonable

and was undertaken intentionally, with malice, with reckless indifference to the

rights of others, and in total disregard of the truth and Plaintiff’s clear innocence.

115. As a result of the misconduct described in this Count, Plaintiff suffered

loss of liberty, great mental anguish, humiliation, degradation, physical and

emotional pain and suffering, and other grievous and continuing injuries and

damages as set forth herein.

116. The misconduct described in this Count and Plaintiff’s injuries

described in this Count were caused by the policies, practices, and customs of

Defendants City of Shreveport and/or Caddo Parish, in that their employees and

agents regularly failed to disclose exculpatory evidence to criminal defendants,

fabricated false evidence implicating criminal defendants in criminal conduct,

elicited false and coerced witness testimony, pursued wrongful convictions through

profoundly flawed investigations, and otherwise violated due process in a similar

manner to that alleged herein.

117. The above-described widespread practices, which were so well-settled

as to constitute the de facto policy of the City of Shreveport and/or Caddo Parish

were allowed to exist because municipal policymakers with authority over the same

exhibited deliberate indifference to the problem, thereby effectively ratifying it.

Furthermore, the widespread practices described in the preceding paragraphs were

allowed to flourish because the City of Shreveport and/or Caddo Parish declined to

implement sufficient training or any legitimate mechanism for oversight or

28
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 29 of 47 PageID #: 515

punishment of officers and agents who withheld material evidence, fabricated false

evidence and witness testimony, and pursued wrongful convictions.

118. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken under the

policies and practices of the City of Shreveport and/or Caddo Parish in that the

constitutional violations committed against Plaintiff were committed by or with the

knowledge or approval of persons with final policymaking authority for the City of

Shreveport and/or Caddo Parish or were committed by persons with such final

policymaking authority.

119. The policies, practices, and customs set forth above were the moving

force behind the numerous constitutional violations in this case and directly and

proximately caused Plaintiff to suffer the grievous and permanent injuries and

damages set forth above.

COUNT II – Against the Law Enforcement Defendants, the City of
Shreveport, McCormick, and Caddo Parish
42 U.S.C. § 1983 –Federal Malicious Prosecution2

120. Plaintiff incorporates each paragraph of this Complaint as if fully

restated here.

121. In the manner described above, the Law Enforcement Defendants and

McCormick, individually, jointly, and in conspiracy with one another, as well as

under color of law and within the scope of their employment, accused Plaintiff of

criminal activity and exerted influence to initiate, continue, and perpetuate judicial

2 Plaintiff recognizes that this Circuit currently holds that malicious prosecution is not
actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Other Court of Appeals have taken the opposite position. Plaintiff
pleads the claim here under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to preserve the issue for
reconsideration in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit or review in the Supreme Court of
the United States.

29
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 30 of 47 PageID #: 516

proceedings against Plaintiff without any probable cause for doing so and in spite of

the fact that they knew Plaintiff was innocent, in violation of his rights secured by

the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. In their drive to secure Ford’s wrongful

arrest, conviction, and incarceration, these Defendants deliberately engaged in

arbitrary and conscience-shocking conduct that contravened fundamental canons of

decency and fairness and violated Ford’s substantive due process rights under the

Fourteenth Amendment.

122. In so doing, these Defendants caused Plaintiff to be subjected

improperly to judicial proceedings for which there was no probable cause. These

judicial proceedings were instituted and continued maliciously, resulting in injury.

123. Based on the March 10, 2014, exoneration of Plaintiff and the

subsequent dropping of all charges against him, the criminal action has terminated

in Plaintiff’s favor.

124. The misconduct described in this Count was objectively unreasonable

and was undertaken intentionally, with malice, with reckless indifference to the

rights of others, and in total disregard of the truth and Plaintiff’s clear innocence.

125. As a result of the misconduct described in this Count, Plaintiff suffered

loss of liberty, great mental anguish, humiliation, degradation, physical and

emotional pain and suffering, and other grievous and continuing injuries and

damages as set forth herein.

126. The misconduct describe in this Count and Plaintiff’s injuries

described in this Count were caused by the policies, practices, and customs of

30
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 31 of 47 PageID #: 517

Defendants City of Shreveport and/or Caddo Parish, in that their employees and

agents regularly subjected suspects to prosecutions for which there was no probable

case in a similar manner to that alleged herein.

127. The above-described widespread practices, which were so well-settled

as to constitute the de facto policy of the City of Shreveport and/or Caddo Parish

were allowed to exist because municipal policymakers with authority over the same

exhibited deliberate indifference to the problem, thereby effectively ratifying it.

Furthermore, the widespread practices described in the preceding paragraphs were

allowed to flourish because the City of Shreveport and/or Caddo Parish declined to

implement sufficient training or any legitimate mechanism for oversight or

punishment of officers and agents who subjected suspects to prosecution even in the

absence of probable cause to do so.

128. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken under the

policies and practices of the City of Shreveport and/or Caddo Parish in that the

constitutional violations committed against Plaintiff were committed by or with the

knowledge or approval of persons with final policymaking authority for the City of

Shreveport and/or Caddo Parish or were committed by persons with such final

policymaking authority.

129. The policies, practices, and customs set forth above were the moving

force behind the numerous constitutional violations in this case and directly and

proximately caused Plaintiff to suffer the grievous and permanent injuries and

damages set forth herein.

31
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 32 of 47 PageID #: 518

130. Louisiana state tort law does not provide Plaintiff with a

constitutionally adequate post-deprivation remedy for the injuries that he has

suffered, in violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. As a

result, Plaintiff is entitled to pursue a claim of malicious prosecution under federal

law.

COUNT III – Against the Law Enforcement Defendants, the City of
Shreveport, McCormick and Caddo Parish
42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Failure to Intervene

131. Plaintiff incorporates each paragraph of this Complaint as if fully

restated here.

132. In the manner described above, during the constitutional violations

described herein, one or more of the individual Law Enforcement Defendants or

McCormick stood by without intervening to prevent the violation of Plaintiff’s

constitutional rights, even though they had the opportunity to do so.

133. As a result of the Law Enforcement Defendants’ or McCormick’s

failure to intervene to prevent the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights,

Plaintiff suffered pain and injury, as well as emotional distress. The Law

Enforcement Defendants or McCormick had ample, reasonable opportunities to

prevent this harm but failed to do so.

134. The misconduct described in this Count was objectively unreasonable

and was undertaken intentionally, with malice, reckless indifference to the rights of

others, and in total disregard of the truth and Plaintiff’s clear innocence.

32
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 33 of 47 PageID #: 519

135. As a result of the Law Enforcement Defendants’ or McCormick’s

misconduct described in this Count, Plaintiff suffered loss of liberty, great mental

anguish, humiliation, degradation, physical and emotional pain and suffering, and

other grievous and continuing injuries and damages as set forth herein.

136. The misconduct described in this Count and Plaintiff’s injuries

described in this Count were caused by the policies, practices, and customs of

Defendants City of Shreveport and/or Caddo Parish, in that their employees and

agents regularly failed to disclose exculpatory evidence to criminal defendants,

fabricated false evidence implicating criminal defendants in criminal conduct,

elicited false and coerced witness testimony, pursued wrongful convictions without

probable cause, through profoundly flawed investigations, and otherwise violated

due process in a similar manner to that alleged herein.

137. The above-described widespread practices, which were so well-settled

as to constitute the de facto policy of the City of Shreveport and/or Caddo Parish

were allowed to exist because municipal policymakers with authority over the same

exhibited deliberate indifference to the problem, thereby effectively ratifying it.

Furthermore, the widespread practices described in the preceding paragraphs were

allowed to flourish because the City of Shreveport and/or Caddo Parish declined to

implement sufficient training or any legitimate mechanism for oversight or

punishment of officers and agents who withheld material evidence, fabricated false

evidence and witness testimony, and pursued wrongful convictions.

33
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 34 of 47 PageID #: 520

138. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken under the

policies and practices of the City of Shreveport and/or Caddo Parisn in that the

constitutional violations committed against Plaintiff were committed by or with the

knowledge or approval of persons with final policymaking authority for the City of

Shreveport and/or Caddo Parish or were committed by persons with such final

policymaking authority.

139. The policies, practices, and customs set forth above were the moving

force behind the numerous constitutional violations in this case and directly and

proximately caused Plaintiff to suffer the grievous and permanent injuries and

damages set forth herein.

COUNT IV – Against the Law Enforcement Defendants, the City of
Shreveport, McCormick, and Caddo Parish
42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Conspiracy to Deprive Constitutional Rights

140. Plaintiff incorporates each paragraph of this Complaint as if fully

restated here.

141. After Rozeman’s murder, the Law Enforcement Defendants and

McCormick, acting in concert with other co-conspirators, known and unknown,

reached an agreement among themselves to frame Plaintiff for a crime he did not

commit and thereby to deprive him of his constitutional rights, all as described in

the various paragraphs of this Complaint.

142. In so doing, the Law Enforcement Defendants, McCormick, and these

co-conspirators conspired to accomplish an unlawful purpose by an unlawful means.

34
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 35 of 47 PageID #: 521

In addition, these co-conspirators agreed among themselves to protect one another

from liability for depriving Plaintiff of these rights.

143. In furtherance of their conspiracy, each of these co-conspirators

committed overt acts and were otherwise willful participants in joint activity.

144. The misconduct described in this Count was objectively unreasonable

and was undertaken intentionally, with malice, with reckless indifference to the

rights of others, and in total disregard of the truth and Plaintiff’s clear innocence.

145. As a result of the misconduct committed by the Law Enforcement

Defendants, McCormick, and these co-conspirators described in this Count, Plaintiff

suffered loss of liberty, great mental anguish, humiliation, degradation, physical

and emotional pain and suffering, and other grievous and continuing injuries and

damages as set forth herein.

146. The misconduct described in this Count and Plaintiff’s injuries

described in this Count were caused by the policies, practices, and customs of

Defendants City of Shreveport and/or Caddo Parish, in that their employees and

agents regularly failed to disclose exculpatory evidence to criminal defendants,

fabricated false evidence implicating criminal defendants in criminal conduct,

elicited false and coerced witness testimony, pursued wrongful convictions without

probable cause through profoundly flawed investigations, and otherwise violated

due process in a similar manner to that alleged herein.

147. The above-described widespread practices, which were so well-settled

as to constitute the de facto policy of the City of Shreveport and/or Caddo Parish

35
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 36 of 47 PageID #: 522

were allowed to exist because municipal policymakers with authority over the same

exhibited deliberate indifference to the problem, thereby effectively ratifying it.

Furthermore, the widespread practices described in the preceding paragraphs were

allowed to flourish because the City of Shreveport and/or Caddo Parish declined to

implement sufficient training or any legitimate mechanism for oversight or

punishment of officers and agents who withheld material evidence, fabricated false

evidence and witness testimony, and pursued wrongful convictions without probable

cause.

148. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken under the

policies and practices of the City of Shreveport and/or Caddo Parish in that the

constitutional violations committed against Plaintiff were committed by or with the

knowledge or approval of persons with final policymaking authority for the City of

Shreveport and/or Caddo Parish or were committed by persons with such final

policymaking authority.

149. The policies, practices, and customs set forth above were the moving

force behind the numerous constitutional violations in this case and directly and

proximately caused Plaintiff to suffer the grievous and permanent injuries and

damages set forth above.

COUNT V – Against the Law Enforcement Defendants and McCormick
State Law Claim – Malicious Prosecution

150. Plaintiff incorporates each paragraph of this Complaint as if fully

restated here.

151. The State of Louisiana commenced a criminal action against Plaintiff.

36
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 37 of 47 PageID #: 523

152. The criminal case against Plaintiff was caused and continued by the

Law Enforcement Defendants and McCormick.

153. Based on the March 10, 2014, exoneration of Plaintiff and the

subsequent dropping of all charges against him, the criminal action has terminated

in Plaintiff’s favor.

154. At the time of the initiation of the criminal action against Plaintiff,

there was no probable cause to charge him in the criminal action.

155. The misconduct described in this Count was objectively unreasonable

and was undertaken intentionally, with malice, with reckless indifference to the

rights of others, and in total disregard of the truth and Plaintiff’s clear innocence.

156. As a result of Defendants’ misconduct described in this Count, Plaintiff

suffered loss of liberty, great mental anguish, humiliation, degradation, physical

and emotional pain and suffering, and other grievous and continuing injuries and

damages as set forth herein.

COUNT VI – Against the Law Enforcement Defendants and McCormick
State Law Claim – Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

157. Plaintiff incorporates each paragraph of this Complaint as if fully

restated here.

158. The actions, omissions, and conduct of the Law Enforcement

Defendants and McCormick and as set forth above were extreme and outrageous.

These actions were rooted in an abuse of power and authority and were undertaken

with the intent to cause, or were in reckless disregard of the probability that their

37
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 38 of 47 PageID #: 524

conduct would cause, severe emotional distress to Plaintiff, as is more fully alleged

herein.

159. As a direct and proximate result of the Law Enforcement Defendants

and McCormick actions, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer emotional distress

and other grievous and continuing injuries and damages as set forth herein.

Count VII – Against the Law Enforcement Defendants and
McCormick
State Law Claim – Article 2315 Negligence

160. Plaintiff realleges all of the above as though fully set forth herein.

161. The Law Enforcement Defendants’ and McCormick’s actions described

above caused Ford’s harms as described above and below.

162. Due to their professional roles, the Law Enforcement Defendants and

McCormick owed duties to avoid these harms to Ford.

163. These duties were breached by the Law Enforcement Defendants’ and

McCormick’s acts and omissions, including their negligent or grossly negligent acts

in investigating the murder of Isadore Rozeman, fabricating and reporting false

evidence against Ford, withholding exculpatory evidence, providing testimony at

trial that was speculative and unsupported by science, negligently hiring and

supervising those under their supervision, and failing to prosecute the actual

murderers.

164. The risks and harms that the Law Enforcement Defendants and

McCormick caused were within the scope of protection afforded by the duties they

owed to Ford.

38
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 39 of 47 PageID #: 525

165. As a result of the Law Enforcement Defendants’ and McCormick’s

actions and omissions, Ford sustained actual damages.

166. It was foreseeable, that as a result of the Law Enforcement

Defendants’ and McCormick’s negligence, Mr. Ford would suffer the physical,

emotional and pecuniary damages as described above and below.

Count VIII – Against the Law Enforcement Defendants and McCormick
State Law Claim – Violations of the Louisiana Constitution

167. Plaintiff realleges all of the above as though fully set forth herein.

168. The Louisiana State Constitution guarantees a person’s right to be

secure in his person and effect from unreasonable seizure, to equal protection of the

law, to due process of law, to be free from discrimination, to be free from cruel,

excessive or unusual punishment and to additional unenumerated rights. See La.

Cost. Art. I, §§ 2, 3, 5, 12, 13, 15, 16, 20, 22, and 24.

169. By reason of the same intentional, malicious, reckless and deliberate

conduct that violated Ford’s rights under the United States Constitution, the Law

Enforcement Defendants’ and McCormick’s conduct violated the rights guaranteed

plaintiffs under Article I, §§ 2, 3, 5, 12, 13, 15, 16, 20, 22, and 24 of the Louisiana

State Constitution.

170. These violations by the Law Enforcement Defendants and McCormick

of the Louisiana State Constitution proximately and directly caused Ford to be

wrongfully detained and incarcerated for decades at Angola for a crime he did not

commit, and suffer the additional physical, emotional and pecuniary damages as

described above and below.

39
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 40 of 47 PageID #: 526

COUNT IX – Against the City of Shreveport and Parish of Caddo
State Law Claim – Respondeat Superior

171. Plaintiff incorporates each paragraph of this Complaint as if fully

restated here.

172. While committing the misconduct alleged in the preceding paragraphs,

the Law Enforcement Defendants and McCormick were employees, members, and

agents of the City of Shreveport or the Parish of Caddo acting at all relevant times

within the scope of their employment.

173. Defendants City of Shreveport and Parish of Caddo, are liable as

principal for all torts committed by its agents.

COUNT X – Against the City of Shreveport and the Parish of Caddo
State Law Claim – Indemnification

174. Plaintiff incorporates each paragraph of this Complaint as if fully

restated here.

175. Louisiana law provides that public entities are directed to pay any tort

judgment for compensatory damages for which employees are liable for actions

taken in the discharge of their duties that are within the scope of their employment

activities.

176. The Law Enforcement Defendants and McCormick were employees,

members, and agents of the City of Shreveport or the Parish of Caddo, acting at all

relevant times within the scope of their employment and discharging their duties in

committing the misconduct described above.

40
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 41 of 47 PageID #: 527

177. Defendant City of Shreveport and the Parish of Caddo is obligated by

Louisiana statute to pay any judgment entered against its employees.

Count XI – Pleaded in the Alternative Against the District Attorney
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Monell Claim

178. Plaintiff pleads this entire Count in the alternative, incorporating

paragraphs 76-83 of this Complaint.

179. Prosecutors working for the District Attorney, while acting

individually, jointly, and in conspiracy with one another, as well as under color of

law and within the scope of their employment, deprived Plaintiff of his

constitutional right to a fair trial, in violation of Plaintiff’s right to due process.

180. In the manner described more fully above, these prosecutors destroyed

and deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence from Plaintiff and his criminal

defense attorneys, thereby misleading and misdirecting the criminal prosecution of

Plaintiff.

181. In addition, these prosecutors fabricated and solicited false evidence,

including testimony that they knew to be false and perjured, implicating Plaintiff in

the crime, obtained Plaintiff’s conviction using that false evidence, and failed to

correct fabricated evidence that they knew to be false when it was used against

Plaintiff at his criminal trial.

182. In addition, these prosecutors also destroyed, concealed, and fabricated

additional evidence that is not yet known to Plaintiff.

183. These prosecutors’ misconduct directly resulted in the unjust criminal

conviction of Plaintiff, thereby denying his constitutional right to a fair trial and

41
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 42 of 47 PageID #: 528

due process guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Absent this

misconduct, the prosecution of Plaintiff could not have and would not have been

pursued.

184. In addition, in the manner described above, these prosecutors

individually, jointly, and in conspiracy with one another, as well as under color of

law and within the scope of their employment, accused Plaintiff of criminal activity

and exerted influence to initiate, continue, and perpetuate judicial proceedings

against Plaintiff without any probable cause for doing so and in spite of the fact that

they knew Plaintiff was innocent, in violation of his rights secured by the Fourth

and Fourteenth Amendments. In their drive to secure Ford’s wrongful arrest,

conviction, and incarceration, these prosecutors deliberately engaged in arbitrary

and conscience-shocking conduct that contravened fundamental canons of decency

and fairness and violated Ford’s substantive due process rights under the

Fourteenth Amendment.

185. In so doing, these prosecutors caused Plaintiff to be subjected

improperly to judicial proceedings for which there was no probable cause. These

judicial proceedings were instituted and continued maliciously, resulting in injury.

186. Based on the March 10, 2014, exoneration of Plaintiff and the

subsequent dropping of all charges against him, the criminal action has terminated

in Plaintiff’s favor..

187. In addition, in the manner described above, during the constitutional

violations described herein, one or more prosecutors stood by without intervening to

42
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 43 of 47 PageID #: 529

prevent the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, even though they had the

opportunity to do so.

188. As a result of these prosecutors’ failure to intervene to prevent the

violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Plaintiff suffered pain and injury, as

well as emotional distress. These prosecutors had ample, reasonable opportunities

to prevent this harm but failed to do so.

189. In addition, in the manner described above, these prosecutors, acting

in concert with other prosecutors, known and unknown, reached an agreement

among themselves to frame Plaintiff for a crime he did not commit and thereby to

deprive him of his constitutional rights, all as described in this Count.

190. In so doing, these prosecutors conspired to accomplish an unlawful

purpose by an unlawful means. In addition, these prosecutors agreed among

themselves to protect one another from liability for depriving Plaintiff of these

rights.

191. In furtherance of their conspiracy, each of these prosecutors committed

overt acts and were otherwise willful participants in joint activity.

192. The misconduct described in this Count was objectively unreasonable

and was undertaken intentionally, with malice, reckless indifference to the rights of

others, and in total disregard of the truth and Plaintiff’s clear innocence.

193. As a result of the misconduct described in this Count, Plaintiff suffered

loss of liberty, great mental anguish, humiliation, degradation, physical and

43
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 44 of 47 PageID #: 530

emotional pain and suffering, and other grievous and continuing injuries and

damages as set forth herein.

194. The misconduct described in this County and Plaintiff’s injuries were

caused by the policies, practices, and customs of the District Attorney, in that the

District Attorney’s employees and agents regularly failed to disclose exculpatory

evidence to criminal defendants, fabricated false evidence implicating criminal

defendants in criminal conduct, elicited false and coerced witness testimony,

pursued wrongful convictions through profoundly flawed investigations, and

otherwise violated due process in a similar manner to that alleged herein.

195. The above-described widespread practices, which were so well-settled

as to constitute the de facto policy of the District Attorney were allowed to exist

because the District Attorney’s policymakers with authority over the same exhibited

deliberate indifference to the problem, thereby effectively ratifying it. Furthermore,

the widespread practices described in the preceding paragraphs were allowed to

flourish because the District Attorney declined to implement sufficient training or

any legitimate mechanism for oversight or punishment of prosecutors who withheld

material evidence, fabricated false evidence and witness testimony, and pursued

wrongful convictions without probable cause.

196. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken under the

policies and practices of the District Attorney in that the constitutional violations

committed against Plaintiff were committed by or with the knowledge or approval of

44
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 45 of 47 PageID #: 531

persons with final policymaking authority for the District Attorney or were

committed by persons with such final policymaking authority.

197. The policies, practices, and customs set forth above were the moving

force behind the numerous constitutional violations in this case and directly and

proximately caused Plaintiff to suffer the grievous and permanent injuries and

damages set forth above.

198. Louisiana state tort law does not provide Plaintiff with a

constitutionally adequate post-deprivation remedy for the injuries that he has

suffered, in violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. As a

result, Plaintiff is entitled to pursue a claim of malicious prosecution under federal

law.

Count XII – Against Defendant ABC Insurance Companies 1-10
State Law Claim – Direction Action

199. Plaintiff incorporates each paragraph of this Complaint as if fully

restated here.

200. Defendant ABC Insurance Companies 1-10, upon information and

belief, have issued and/or currently have in effect one or more policies of insurance

covering one or more of the Defendants named herein. For valuable consideration

received, these policies obligated Defendant ABC Insurance Companies 1-10, jointly

and/or severally, to pay on behalf of their insured Defendant(s) any sums the

insured Defendant(s) may become obligated to pay to Plaintiff or to indemnify their

insured Defendant(s) for any sums the insured Defendant(s) may become obligated

to pay Plaintiff.

45
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 46 of 47 PageID #: 532

201. By reason of their illegal and unconstitutional acts, Defendants are

liable to Plaintiff for all damages and injuries Plaintiff has suffered as a result.

Upon information and belief, Defendant ABC Insurance Companies 1-10 are

contractually obligated to pay these sums on behalf of the insured Defendant(s).

202. Upon information and belief, Defendant ABC Insurance Companies 1-

10 are liable to Plaintiff for any and all damages incurred by reason of the insured

Defendant(s)’ acts, up to their policy limits, notwithstanding the fact that the

insured Defendant(s) may themselves be able to assert claims of privilege or

immunity from liability.

203. Under Louisiana Revised Statute § 22:655(B), Plaintiff brings a direct

action against Defendant ABC Insurance Companies 1-10 to recover any and all

sums they are obligated to pay Plaintiff on behalf of their insureds or to indemnify

their insureds.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff GLENN FORD respectfully requests that this Court
enter a judgment in his favor and against Defendants the CITY OF SHREVEPORT,

DON ASHLEY, GARY ALDERMAN, GARY PITTMAN, EVERETT T. RUSHING,

the ESTATE OF BILLY LOCKWOOD, FRANK DATCHER, GLYNN MITCHELL,

R. PRICE, POLICE DOES 1-10, ESTATE OF GEORGE MCCORMICK, CADDO

PARISH, PAUL CARMOUCHE, in his official capacity as District Attorney of

Caddo Parish, DALE COX, in his official capacity as District Attorney of Caddo

Parish, CADDO PARISH DISTRICT ATTORNEY’s OFFICE, and ABC

INSURANCE COMPANIES awarding compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and

46
Case 5:15-cv-00544-SMH-KLH Document 86 Filed 09/08/15 Page 47 of 47 PageID #: 533

costs against each Defendant, punitive damages against each of the individual

Defendants, and any other relief this Court deems just and appropriate.

JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff, GLENN FORD, hereby demands a trial by jury pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b) on all issues so triable.

Respectfully submitted,
DATED: June 25, 2015
/s/ Mummi Ibrahim
Mummi Ibrahim, Louisiana Bar No. 34200
Ibrahim & Associates, LLC
4164 Canal Street
New Orleans, LA 70119
(504) 327-5289
mibrahim@iandalaw.com

/s/ Mark Loevy-Reyes

Mark Loevy-Reyes, Illinois Bar No. 6209841
Admitted to this Court pro hac vice
Jon Loevy (pro hac vice motion pending)
Arthur Loevy (pro hac vice motion pending)
Steven Art (pro hac vice motion pending)
Loevy & Loevy
312 N. May Street
Chicago, IL 60607
(312) 243-5900
mark@loevy.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Glenn Ford

47