Filing # 105873596 E-Filed 04/05/2020 01:20:54 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NUMBER: 2017 CF 826 A

STATE OF FLORIDA,
Plaintiff,
vs.

MARKEITH LOYD,
Defendant.
_____________________/

MOTION TO COMPEL ORIGINAL INTERVIEW NOTES AND DOCUMENTS

WITHHELD FROM FDLE BY ORLANDO POLICE DEPARTMENT INTERNAL
AFFAIRS AND RESPONSE TO RESISTENCE INVESTIGATION WHICH OCCURRED
PRIOR TO FDLE INVESTIGATION

Defendant, Markeith Loyd, by and through undersigned counsel files this Motion to Compel
and states:

1. On January 17, 2017, officers from the Orlando Police Department (OPD), Orange County
Sheriff’s Department (OCSD) and other agencies converged on a single-family home
located at 1157 Lescot Lane in Orlando intent on executing the arrest of Markeith Loyd for
the shooting of Sgt. Deborah Clayton.
2. As a result of the arrest, the Defendant suffered a large contusion above the left eye; small
contusion above right eye; cut next to left eye; avulsion on left side of cheek; abrasion and
contusions on the right side of face; a cut in the mouth; bruise on center of back below
shoulder blades; small cut and bruise on lower center portion of back; a red semi-circle
abrasion in the center of the back just above the waist; cut on the right ear; abrasion on right
elbow. (See Florida Department of Law Enforcement Investigative Summary
hereafter FDLEIS.) The Defendant was later diagnosed at the hospital with a left inferior
orbital blowout fracture and rupture globe, left eye which required surgery to repair. See
FDLEIS. Ultimately Loyd lost his eye.
3. It was determined that during the arrest of the Defendant, four Orlando police officers’ used
deadly force. They are Sgt James Parker; Sgt Anthony Mongelluzzo; Officer Cedric Hinkles
and Officer Jonathon Cute. It was determined that Sgt Parker delivered a kick with his right

1
 foot to the left side of Loyd’s face and delivered two to three muzzle strikes from his rifle
to his back and ended with a closed fist strike to the right side of his face with his right hand.
See FDLEIS. Officer Hinkles delivered a front kick to Loyd striking Loyd on his left ear
followed by a downward kick to his left shoulder blade and three closed fist strikes to his
shoulder. See FDLEIS. Later after being gently nudged by Sgt Wesley Whited, who
conducted the original “Response to Resistance” Orlando Police Department
Investigation (RROPDI), Hinkles admitted he delivered a muzzle strike to the left side of
Loyd’s face. (see below paragraph in regards to Hinkles interview.) Sgt Mongelluzzo
delivered a muzzle strike with a rifle to Loyd’s back. See FDLEIS. Officer Cute delivered
one kick to the left side of Loyd’s face. See FDLEIS.
4. In the course of their investigation the FDLE obtained material from OPD investigations,
including Internal Affairs and RROPDI. This information was provided to the Defendant
at the close of the FDLE investigation.
5. It should be noted at the outset that all findings in all the investigations regarding the deadly
force used by OPD officers, including those done by OPD and FDLE used the written
statements of the four officers that were prepared prior to February 1, 2017. These
statements were unchallenged ( See Exhibit B portion of deposition Sgt Whited) Sgt
Parker prepared his statement on January 25, 2017; Officer Cute prepared his statement on
January 25, 2017 and Sgt Monguelluzzo prepared his statement on February 1, 2017. It is
unclear when Officer’s Hinkles first version was prepared, as it has never been provided.
What is clear, is that it wasn’t until April 6th, 2017 that each of the four officers were ordered
not to discuss the events of January 17, 2017 involving Loyd. (See Exhibit A) From the
time of the original statements until April 6th none of the Officers were questioned about
their involvement. (with the exception of Hinkle who was allowed to correct his statement
so it matched Whited’ findings) Each of the officers had access to review video footage
from the police helicopter before they wrote out their statement’s. (See Exhibit B portion
of deposition Sgt Whited). Sixteen strikes to the Defendant in total were admitted by the
officers’. No precautions were taken to preclude collusion between the officers’ in preparing
their statements. As a matter of fact, every law enforcement agency involved in this
investigation has taken liberty with the facts. It is apparent that the blue wall of silence is
alive in Orlando, Florida.

2
6. It is also obvious that the Whited investigation was flawed from the beginning. Whited
who was designated to conduct the RROPDI, and found the officers’ actions were within
the Orlando Police Department’s Policy and Procedure allowed one of the witnesses to
modify his statement almost a month and half after the incident happened. Whited carefully
analyzed the evidence and when the pieces did not fit perfectly, met with Hinkles to clean
up the missing piece. This conduct in any other investigation would be a career ending event.
Speaking to a subject accused of a forcible felony and guiding him to change his story so it
fits the evidence as the investigator sees it. And of course using that change in conjunction
with the other three statements to exonerate his fellow officers.
7. On March 9, 2017 Whited met with Hinkle. (It is unclear what contact Whited had with the
other three officers but what is clear is that the other three officers written statements
matched up with the video and the number of strikes per Whited and Hinkles did not. (See
Exhibit C portion of deposition Sgt Whited) At the meeting, Whited actually verbally
questioned Hinkle about the inconsistency in his original statement and guided him to a
modification. This statement has not been provided or was not recorded. In spite of not
questioning the other three, Whited allowed Hinkles to correct his written statement.
(Exhibit D) Whited then notarized a completely new statement by Hinkles dated March 9,
2017. In his final report, Whited omitted this meeting with Hinkles and how he allowed
Hinlkes to modify his statement. His reports was provided to the chain of command and
Chief of Police.(Ex E and F).
8. Below signed counsel intends to aggressively challenge the statements and actions by Sgt
James Parker; Sgt Anthony Mongelluzzo; Officer Cedric Hinkles and Officer Jonathon
Cute. Moreover, Whited’ investigation is at question. His failure to share with his chain of
command that he contributed to the “new narrative” of Hinkles is suspect at best. It is
apparent that there was a consolidated effort within the Orlando Police Department to create
a narrative that would justify the unlawful conduct of these officers. Whited’actions with
Hinkles cast doubt about his impartiality. It is more suspect that Deputy Chief Canty was
somehow involved and aware of Whited’ actions with Hinkles. (See Exhibit G). If Whited
had the blessing of Canty to meet with Hinkles then did the orders to clean up come from
above? It is clear that the conduct of the Orlando Police Departments investigation and the
Florida Department of Law Enforcement ability to discard evidence that may be problematic

3
 is material to the Defendant in challenging the officers and OPD credibility.
9. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(f) provides- on a showing of materiality, the
court may require such other discovery to the parties as justice may require. Here without
question there are documents and communication and statements that have not been
provided to the Defendant which are relevant and necessary. One such statement is the
original statement of Hinkles. Moreover, Whited never generated a report or notes that
documented his meeting with Hinkles. Other items include documents that communicate
the meeting between Hinkles and Whited with senior staff at OPD who is now Undersheriff
to Mina. Finally any communications between Canty and Mina regarding the Whited –
Hinkle meeting.

WHEREFORE, the Defendant request that the Court order compliance by State Attorney
Brad King, and the Orlando Police Department all items requested an any other relevant material.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing motion was served via

Efiling notification on the Office of the State Attorney on April 5, 2020.

Respectfully Submitted,

s/Terence M. Lenamon
Terence M. Lenamon, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 970476
245 S.E. 1st St.
Suite 404
Miami, FL 33131
p. 305-373-9911
f. 305-503-6973
terry@lenamonlaw.com

4
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT F
EXHIBIT G