THE JUSTICE WARRIORS DISCLAIMER
Justice Warrior Investigations, and/or its affiliates, does not endorse the truthfulness of the witness statements found within this website. We do, however, endorse the truthfulness that these statements have not been altered nor have we had any influence on the statements given. What you hear is exactly what we have been told.
Also, we are not attorneys. Therefore, nothing you read on this website should be taken as legal advise!
HISTORY OF HUMAN RIGHTS
The concept of Human Rights goes back long before the turn of the century. While our concept of what that means may have changed; and still varies depending on which country we reside in, the basic need for an understanding of rights has been a universal concept throughout the history of mankind. The more we know and understand about those rights, the more powerful we are in safeguarding ourselves from the intrusion of those rights.
I invite each and every one of you, to empower yourselves with a deeper understanding of, not only what those rights are but, what they mean and how they came to be.
Over the next several weeks, I will be posting new blog entries and podcasts, discussing the difference between human and civil rights and the various ways that our rights can be violated in modern day society.
Don’t Rob Locally-Elected DAs of Their Authority to Settle Death Penalty Cases
TAKE ACTION NOW: Tell Tennessee Senators Not to Rob Locally Elected DAs of Power to Settle Death Cases.
Today, the Tennessee Senate is voting on HB1002/SB1500, as amended. This legislation robs locally elected district attorneys of control over all types of state post-conviction matters in death penalty cases. It transfers authority from the locally elected District Attorneys General to the unelected Tennessee Attorney General. District Attorneys are elected by the voters of their districts to ensure accountability to the community which elects them. This bill undermines the power of their vote.
3 justices protest Supreme Court decision to deny appeal of Tennessee man on death row
By Evan Mealins
Nashville Tennessean
Three U.S. Supreme Court justices on Monday decried the court majority’s decision not to intervene in the case of a Tennessee man awaiting execution who may have been unfairly sentenced due to ineffective counsel.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the denial “disheartening” and said lower court rulings were “indefensible” in her dissent.
The court declined to hear the case of Kevin B. Burns, who was convicted of murder in the 1992 shooting deaths of Damond Dawson and Tracey Johnson in Memphis. Burns was sentenced to death in Dawson’s murder.
Burns argues that his counsel at his 1995 trial and sentencing failed to introduce key facts and challenge the state’s narrative that Burns himself pulled the trigger of the gun that killed either of the men.
What You Should Know About Private Investigating
1. You should never “investigate” your own case. You are too close. Further, there is a fine line between “investigating” and “stalking.” When you do it, it’s stalking. When you hire someone to do it, it’s “investigating” (as long as there isn’t an order in place prohibiting you from hiring a PI).
2. It’s always best to have your attorney act as the client to the PI. That way, all communications and activity is protected under the “attorney-client privilege.” Otherwise, if the opposing counsel subpoenas the PIs files, they have to surrender them. Having an attorney as the “middle man” prevents this from happening.
3. GPS trackers are illegal in most states! The only exception to this is if you are tracking a minor child who is driving your vehicle or if you are tracking your own vehicle. Generally speaking, you cannot track anyone over the age of 18 (even if your name is on the vehicle).
4. Always research the PI company. Check to be sure that they are licensed and that they always use licensed PIs. You should check reviews, too. Remember that, while you may never need them to testify, if, by chance, they are needed in court, if they are not properly licensed, their testimonies can be thrown out altogether. Credentials are important and that’s for good reason.
5. Public databases are not always accurate. Platforms like Truthfinder and Skope (to name a few) can be helpful in some ways but, often, have inaccurate information. In most cases, they are not so good at separating info pertaining to individuals with the same name. Thus, while some of the info you receive may be relevant to the person you’re “investigating,” other info will likely be about other individuals with the same name. Be careful, as you don’t want to accuse someone of having a criminal history that does not belong to them.
6. When you hire a PI, you are paying for their time and expertise, not the results. For example, if you’re hoping to catch your spouse cheating but he is not cheating, the PI cannot catch him doing something he (or she) isn’t doing. In most cases, the client would be relieved to learn that their spouse really is working late. But, some people, feel that this means the investigation was unsuccessful and expected a refund.
7. A PI cannot issue a warrant, subpoena or arrest anyone. As a PI, our job is to gather info to help you with your case. However, from that point on, it is in the hands of your attorney and/or law enforcement and the courts to decide what to do with that information. Trust me when I say that this can be extremely frustrating for a PI. However, as invested as we may be, the outcome is out of our control.
8. Research the laws about consent in your state prior to recording any conversation. Some states are “one party consent,” which means that, as long as you are a party to the conversation, you can legally record it. While other states require two (or both) separate persons, who are parties of the conversation, to consent. It is always illegal to record a conversation that you are not a party of, unless you have consent from one (or both… depending on the law) of parties conversing. If you are not acting under the confines of the law you can be charged with Invasion of Privacy and/or Wiretapping.
IS CASEY ANTHONY INNOCENT?
I've been watching the Casey Anthony documentary and it has raised a question in my mind that I feel inspired to address. Why do people lie? What would motivate someone to join in on that lie, to conspire, knowing the urgency and importance of transparency for the sake of another?
Casey Anthony’s credibility is shot. She is an admitted liar, and, because of that, the whole world is asking… why should we believe a word she says, now? I must admit that, even I am unsure whether I believe what she is saying. But because I believe in second chances… I am listening and I am going to share my feelings on the subject.
In Casey’s defense, I will say that there was always something about her father that didn’t sit well with me. I felt, in my heart, that they were both lying but I wasn’t sure who was lying for whom. There was always this feeling, deep down, that they both knew something, and they had some unspoken alliance. But, why?
Family secrets run deep. Trauma is real and, when a young woman who is/was sexually abused for years does not break free from her abuser’s control, it is no surprise that the generational curse bled onto her own children and, ultimately, resulted in unimaginable tragedy.
After Caylee disappeared, Casey did what Casey had always done when she was trying to escape reality. She numbed herself and she lived a lie. She successfully convinced herself, as she had always done, that none of it was real. But she wouldn’t be able to run from the truth forever.
Now, in the Casey Anthony Story, Where the Truth Lies, Casey decides to tell the truth for the first time, maybe ever. According to her, she was raped by her father which conditioned her to live a lie and she was doing as she was instructed to do when she lied to law enforcement (repeatedly). Casey claims that, on the morning that Caylee disappeared, she woke up to her father shaking her and asking, “where is Caylee.” After searching the home and yard, her father appeared in front of her with Caylee’s limp body. According to Casey, Caylee’s body was soaking wet, suggesting that she had drowned in the pool, but her farther assured her that Caylee would “be okay” just before disappearing with the child. Casey herself has said that she does not believe that Caylee drowned in that pool, and neither do I.
I conducted my own statement analysis on Casey’s statements on the documentary, and I must admit that there were some red flags based on basic mannerisms and her choice of words. Many who have spent much more time on this case than I have asserted that Casey Anthony is a sociopath and, if that is the case, than one must concede that she would be a master of manipulation (an actress worthy of a Grammy). Knowing this makes it difficult to discern whether , or not, Casey Anthony is, in fact, telling the truth (something she has admittedly had trouble with in the past). However, I do believe that her father sexually abused her and that her relationship with her father was unhealthy (to say the least). George Anthony’s stoic persona, while Cindy Anthony behaved frantically, was chilling. He knew all along exactly where that child was, and he kept his silence. Deep down, I think Cindy knew, too. Casey got her gift of avoidance and denial from years of watching her mother ignore the abuse that was going on right under her nose.
At the end of the day, that beautiful child’s death was the catalyst that broke her mother free from the chains of abuse. It’s sad that that is what it took but had that tragedy not happened, the abuse would still be going on today and Casey Anthony would still be under the mind-control of her father.
The question of what happened to Caylee Anthony remains. Nobody, not even Casey, knows what really happened on that fateful day. Casey said her father used to smother her to make her pass out so he could abuse her sexually. My theory is that he took the child out of the room and was doing what he had done so many times in the past but this time he took it to far and she didn’t wake back up. She was wet because he had to wash the evidence (his DNA) from her body; and he disposed of her because it would have come out, in an autopsy, that she had been sexually abused and that would have made him the prime suspect.
In conclusion, I believe Casey Anthony is telling the truth and I believe George Anthony is the real killer.
Sign the Petition to Exonerate Gary Sutton
On February 24, 1992, the body of Mr. Tommy Griffin was discovered on the riverbank of Sevierville, TN, from a shotgun blast to the head. His sister, Connie Branam, was discovered in the next county over, burned alive in her car, just four short days later. When investigators began to retrace the steps of the victims, they learned that the defendant, Gary Sutton, and his uncle, James Dellinger, had allegedly been seen with both victims, prior to their being murdered. Naturally, and without knowing information exposed through this investigation, any person on the outside looking in would believe that Sutton and Dellinger had acted together to commit these gruesome acts. However, thirty years later, with execution just around the corner, Sutton, who has consistently maintained his innocence, has finally obtained the evidence necessary to prove that there are other possible suspects with motive and that the investigators, who took the utilitarian approach to achieve what they believed was “justice,” have made dire mistakes, which caused another innocent life to be lost.
During the pre-trial phase, defense attorneys, F.D. Gibson and John Goergon (for Sutton), raised issue with the court pertaining to their lack of experience in criminal (particularly capital murder) cases. The court refused to relieve them and find better, more competent, attorneys to represent the accused. Though the pair certainly gave it their best effort, ultimately, they were unable to overcome the bias that was so blatantly displayed throughout the entire judicial process. Transcripts of the trial and subsequent hearings reveal nontruths told by lead investigators (under oath) in pursuit of search warrants, jury tampering and coercion of witnesses. In fact, the complete lack of integrity displayed by investigators combined with the court’s compliance to allow evidence in that should have been stricken, caused the defendants to be faced with a set of prejudices impossible to overcome. Here are just a few examples of such occurrences:
Sutton’s attorneys acknowledged that they lacked experience in homicide cases (let alone Capital Murder) and requested to be relieved of their duty to the client. The court denied their request. Key witness, Dr. Charles Harlan, who established the time and date of death of the victim, was under investigation by the TBI at the time of this trial. He later lost his medical license, causing several cases that he’d testified in to be overturned. Though the defense’s forensic expert adamantly disagreed with Harlan’s testimony in this case, the court refused to acknowledge the possibility that Harlan’s report was inaccurate because, if it did, it could change the outcome of the entire case. Whether, or not, the defendants could possibly be perpetrators of this crime relies heavily on the timeline created and sworn to by this discredited expert witness. Although the victim had been arrested on public intoxication charges on the night in question, the arresting officer, Officer Roberts, failed to get the names of two “older” gentlemen (driving a dark pickup truck) that the victim was with at the time that he was arrested. To date, these men have never been identified but, arguably, should have been sought for questioning and considered suspects. Family members of the victim were seen talking to the jurors. When the person who witnessed this informed the judge, he replied, “I think it will be okay.” Lead investigator, Detective Widener, was confronted, on the stand, by the judge, for having lied in an affidavit about having two witnesses that he claimed saw the defendants at the crime scene. It was this false testimony that provided grounds for the search warrant at Dellinger’s trailer. When confronted with the possibility of separating the defendants in order to ensure that they both received a fair trial, the state told the judge that they would have to let Mr. Sutton go, if they did that, because they had “no evidence” tying Mr. Sutton directly to the crime.
Despite discrepancies, Sutton and Dellinger were convicted on 1st Degree murder charges, in Blount County Circuit Court, on September 5, 1996. On appeal, defendants raised the following issues:
Constitutionality of Indictments
Sutton and Dellinger maintained that the indictments in this case failed to comply with Apprendi requirements because they did not contain any facts concerning the Branam murder, which was relied upon as an aggravating factor.
The appellate court disagreed with the assertion that the defendants’ constitutional rights had been violated when the district court used Branam’s murder as an aggravating factor, stating that, since both defendants had already been convicted in that case, at the time of sentencing, the Apprendi holding applied to enhancement factors. Further, it found that the death penalty was within the statutory range of punishment as prescribed by Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202(c)(1). Thus, the trial court’s decision to was upheld.
Separate Jury Trials
Initially, Sutton and Dellinger requested severance. However, on April 20, 1994, they abandoned the motion asking only that the court grant them separate juries (two juries at the same trial). The trial court overruled the motion, ordering that any evidence that might be inadmissible against one of the defendants would not be allowed into evidence. The court therefore found no reason preventing both defendants from receiving a fair trial before the same jury.
Relevant Facts
Defendant Sutton and the victim, Tommy Griffin, were close friends. Defendant Dellinger is Defendant Sutton’s uncle. The victim and his sister lived in trailers at the same trailer park as both defendants. Prior to the night in question, Defendant Dellinger’s trailer was “shot up” and he filed a police report stating that the believed he knew who it was because he and the victim’s brother had bad blood. Later, detectives claimed to have found spent shells at Dellinger’s trailer that match shells found at the crime scene. However, the question of whether those shots were fired by Dellinger or the person who shot at his trailer was never properly addressed. The victim and both defendants went to Howie’s Hideaway Lounge for adult beverages on the day in question. Barmaid, Jamie Carr, testified that the trio arrived between 2:30 and 3:00 P.M., and that they were still there when her shift was over at 5:00 P.M.. Ms. Carr also testified that the men seemed to be getting along and that she did not witness anything out of the ordinary about them on this day. Ms. Carr testified that the men drank about 4 beers each during her shift and that Defendant Dellinger paid for them. Ms. Carr was not able to positively identify Sutton’s Chevy Camaro as the vehicle that they arrived to Howie’s Hideaway Lounge on the day in question. The barmaid that relieved Ms. Carr, Terri Lilly, testified that the men stayed for another hour and a half to two hours; and that she did not witness any confrontational behavior between them. Ms. Lilly testified that the men drank 2-3 beers each, before leaving at about 7:00 P.M. Later that night, Tommy Griffin picked up off the side of the road and arrested for public intoxication. The arresting officer, Officer Roberts, testified that Griffin was, at that time, with two “older” gentlemen in a dark truck (not Dellinger and Sutton). Griffin acted scared and refused to tell the officer what had happened. Those two men have never been identified and should have been considered suspects. Detective Widener committed perjury by claiming to have two eye-witnesses who could place the defendants at the crime scene, yet evidence from the search warrant obtained by that warrant was not stricken. It was that search warrant that produced the shells that should have been questioned due to the previous incident of Dellinger’s trailer being shot at. Agent Davenport violated Sutton’s constitutional rights and committed perjury when he pulled Sutton out of his jail cell despite his attorney’s statement that no one was allowed to speak to him outside of his presence. He also forged the name of another deputy who accompanied him on that day. Witness Jason McDonald claims to have seen a dark-colored “boxy” vehicle fleeing the crime scene after hearing three shots fired. This description does not match either defendant’s vehicles, but it does match the description of the vehicle Sutton described the victim leaving in with the “fat ugly” woman. Juror Edna Garner provided a statement, in the course of this investigation, to private investigator, Heather Rolling, stating that she was “talked in to” signing the guilty verdict by her friend that was also on the jury. Juror Theresa Sparks provided a statement to P.I. Heather Rolling that puts into question whether the State deliberately influenced the jurors by going out of their way to drive by the crime scene “everyday” on their way to and from court. The defense attorneys assigned to this case recognized their incompetence and asked to be relieved but were denied their request. Expert witness, Dr. Harlan, was being investigated by the T.B.I. at the time of this trial and, later, lost his medical license due to having lied and falsified documents in other cases. Harlan’s testimony was relied upon by the prosecution to establish the time and date of death. Defendant Sutton claims that the victim, Tommy Griffin, left the jail (after being bailed out by Sutton and Dellinger) in a dark colored car with a woman. Although Griffin was never seen alive, again, Sutton still, after spending thirty-years of his life behind bars, maintains his innocence.
Conclusion
For the reasons listed above and, collectively, both new evidence and previously raised issues, there is no doubt that Defendant Sutton suffered multiple prejudices that would have undoubtedly resulted in a different outcome had the state conducted its investigation with the level of due diligence and integrity that it is supposed to. Perhaps the most damning piece of evidence is the lack of actual evidence against Defendant Sutton and the fact that the State knew that the only way they could charge him would be to try him with Dellinger, based on the assertion that he and Dellinger were together during the established time of death. However, with the expert witness, Charles Harlan, having been discredited, how can one say, with certainty, that this was one of the rare occasions when Dr. Harlan’s testimony could be trusted? The fact of the matter is that, essentially, none of the evidence that was used to convict either defendant has withstood the test of time. If one were to stricken; (a) the illegal search warrant (based on perjured testimony); (b) the testimony of a discredited expert witness establishing the time and date of death; (c) the guilty verdict of a tampered with jury; (d) the testimony of a witnesses who has provided a new statement expressing that the state put her “maybe” forth as certainty in their effort to place Dellinger at the crime scene; and another witness whose account of seeing a “boxy” vehicle flee the crime scene was left out entirely, there would be very little left to convict either defendant. Perhaps more importantly is the fact that the state failed to disclose exculpatory evidence that could have helped the defense develop an alternate theory. Failure to provide exculpatory evidence is reason enough to grant the defendants a new trial but, since there is little to no evidence left standing, the state is inevitably left with nothing to do except drop all charges and give these men the chance to, hopefully, enjoy what is left of the life that was stolen from them the day they were wrongfully convicted of murdering their friend.
Therefore, The State of Tennessee v. Gary Sutton should be overturned, and Gary Sutton should be exonerated of all charges.
Justice Warriors Podcast Episode 49: The Wrongful Conviction of Gary Sutton
Private Investigator, Heather Cohen’s, Response to State Gazette Article Regarding Sam Kelly Trial
I have some serious concerns about the state’s witnesses’ testimonies after reading the State Gazette’s article on the Sam Kelly trial. As many of you know, since I was there to testify for the defense, I was not allowed to be present in the gallery during witness testimonies. Thus, I was not aware, until now, what those statements contained. Specifically, I would like to bring attention to the testimony of TBI Agent Tubbs, who was able to get Mark Morgan's alleged testimony on record, without Morgan's presence in the court room, with this single statement:
- “No he hadn’t. There was some information he had that we had heard while watching the video in the parking lot. It seemed to be what all he had heard discussed from Heather Cowen (sic) a private investigator in Middle Tennessee,” Tubbs stated. “Apparently, she had came to town at some point, and he rode around with her to places of interest. He was discussing things he had seen on Topix.com, social media, and rumors around town.”
The statement should have been struck, in my opinion, considering that Morgan was not there to give the statement in person and, although I was there and more than willing to take the stand, I was also not cross examined on the validity of this statement. However, the statement was taken in good faith and made part of court record despite its inaccuracies.
Since the trial is concluded and both defendants were found guilty, I have released my audio files of my conversations with Mark Morgan. Anyone who listens to these audios will know that this testimony is inaccurate. Morgan’s information came from people who claimed to have first hand information, who also provided statements to me and others who claim to have been threatened and/or told to shut their mouths!! I wasn’t providing Mark Morgan with information and he NEVER rode around with me. To be completely transparent, he met me and my security detail, Michael Bolden, at a location that he (Morgan) had suggested that we check. This only happened once and did not result in any new information into what happened to Swift.
I have reached out to Mr. Brandon Hutcheson, the author of the article, as well as General Goodman and Agent Tubbs. The fact that the record reflects false information is unsettling for me and makes me regret, even more, that I was not allowed to take the stand. Though I am unsure as to whether, or not, my testimony would have made a difference in the outcome, I would have felt better knowing that the jury had correct information.
The State v. Mark Morgan and Sam Kelly
Many have wanted to know what, exactly, Mark Morgan had that he was trying to extort the Sells with and, now that the verdict is in and both defendants were found guilty, I don’t see any legal reason to withhold that information from the public. I did attend the trial but was unable to listen in until closing arguments because I was supposed to testify on behalf of Sam Kelly. However, since the state pulled their key witness, Mark Morgan, who was to testify against Kelly, it was deemed unnecessary that I testify (since my purpose was to poke holes in Morgan’s testimony). Darrell Sells stayed true to form and, as usual, made sure to intimidate me in the court room. Specifically, when the jury came back in from deliberation with the request to listen to the audios once more and when they got to the part in the TBI audios when Sells says he wants to bash my head in and Sam tells him that I was hired by David Swift (which is false), Darrell leaned forward and turned towards me to stare me down and point at me. I shook my head so as to say “no,” to which he shook his head “yes.” This went on several times before I simply looked away. I was told, by someone who did sit in the gallery throughout the entire duration of the trial, that the jury was led to believe that Morgan’s information would help them. I disagree but, since there’s not reason to be secretive about what the info was, anymore, I am posing links to all the files that I have available to me regarding the issue. Obviously, this is why I was there and why I was so adamant about testifying. BUT, I was told that, since this was not about the Karen Swift murder, the court would only allow issues that dealt directly with the question of whether, or not, Sam Kelly had extorted the Sells. The fact that Morgan had told me, prior to being arrested, that he was being threatened by Darren Sells and all the threats toward me and other witnesses were considered irrelevant to the issue. Now, I did make a public statement that I trust God and that the jury’s verdict is “well with my soul,” and that is true. I am not challenging that decision. But, I do believe that, for those who are interested in knowing the whole story, there is certainly more to be told.
In summary, Mark Morgan believed that the Sells and the Sheriff, Jeff Box, were involved in Ms. Swift’s murder (not saying this is or isn’t true I am just stating what he believed). He believed that Swift was killed inside Sheriff Box’s double-wide trailer and that, when he moved it to his property to renovate in, he tore up the carpet and replaced the plywood due to her blood having soaked through. In fact, at one point, he had me speak with a witness who claimed that she was the person whom was sent to Lowes to purchase the plywood (with cash) for Sheriff Box. Morgan had also provided the witness who claimed that he was working in Kentucky with Bentley Quertermous on the Monday following the day Swift went missing, and that Quertermous had thrown a (possibly) bloody poncho in the woods. That witness also claimed that Quertermous changed all four tires of his work van and replaced a drivers-side window that had been busted out. Morgan had also pointed me in the direction of a woman who provided me with a statement that her uncle, who is an admitted C.I. had been called in for “clean up” detail. The text messages of the C.I. saying that the F.B.I. had come to talk to him but they took him to Jeff (Box) and that he is “fucked” and would not go down for him (refer to Swift Case Files found under the Case Files tab), were part of that information. Also, Morgan claimed to have been behind Darrell Sells when Sheriff Box allowed him through the road block, onto the crime scene, the day Swift’s body was discovered. This is actually mentioned in the video of Morgan, Kelly, and both Sells at the office on the day that Morgan and Kelly were arrested. When Morgan and Kelly say that the information Morgan has could hurt someone in their family/someone close to them, they are referring to Bentley Quertermous (whom a bulk of the information that Morgan had was about).
Prior to their arrest, Morgan told me (in a telephone conversation) that Sheriff Box had been following him and that Darren Sells had threatened him. After his arrest, he said that the reason he went to the Sells was because he was scared and he was trying to get them off of him. It is and always was my belief that, while what they did was despicable and certainly crossed over into the realm of extortion, the underline intention was to get back in good graces with the Sells family so that he could stop looking over his shoulder.
As usual, I would like to assure you that General Danny Goodman is in possession of everything that I have in my possession.
_________________________________________
Were my Victim’s Rights Violated? Yes or No?
For over a year and a half, I was harassed online by my former intern and persons of interest in a murder that I am investigating. They have tried just about everything they could to discredit me, take away my livelihood, and make me “shut” my mouth. Many times, I turned to law enforcement for help and was rejected. Finally, I took matters into my own hands and went before the grand jury with my evidence. The district attorney went over the Stalking Statute multiple times to be sure that they understood the elements that needed to be met in order for the offense to rise to the point of being a criminal matter. A jury of twelve of my peers felt that it did.
After being arrested, both defendants’ mug shots were wiped clean from mobile patrol within an hour. Further, they were released without bond conditions and both the judge, Lee Moore, and district attorney, Danny Goodman, recused themselves.
Prior to the special prosecutor being appointed, the district attorney released the evidence I used to get them indicted to their attorney. Within one day of receipt, Darrell had called and left multiple voice messages on one of my witnesses cell phone. In a flustered voice he told him that he knew he wasn’t answering the phone because of what he did, which was provide me with a recorded conversation between them in which Mr. Sells had admitted that he hired my former intern, Chastity Brandon, to (harass) “get even” with me. At one point he admits that he has paid her thousands of dollars but that he was about to “cut her off.”
Naturally, I was upset to learn that Mr. Sells was going after a witness so I made it a point to attend the first hearing to attempt to get bond conditions set. However, all that happened at that hearing was that everyone recused themselves. I was not allowed in the court room and bond conditions were not set. While sitting in the victim’s room, Darrell’s son, Darren, started a verbal confrontation in the courthouse with my partner/bodyguard. We were escorted out and he followed. He pulled up to my car, while I was standing outside with my roommate (at the time) and yelled, “Heather… see ya soon,” then flipping me off as he drove away.
When Special Prosecutor, Daniel Stephenson, was assigned, he assured me that he would file a violation on the defendants if this behavior continued and that he had “put them on notice.”
I did not attend the second hearing but I felt much better when ADA Stephenson told me that they would have bond conditions filed the following week. This, however, did not happen and, months later, at the third hearing, they literally made the same exact agreement (to file an AO for bond conditions) that I had been told was made at the second hearing. You read that right. Nearly four months in and there still was nothing in place protecting me from them.
I did not attend the second hearing but, at the third hearing, Darrell Sells turned around and stared me down, nodding his head upward like a gangster, and continued to glare at me (from the podium in front of the judge) for most of the hearing. This happened in front of investigator Chris Gorman, General Goodman, Chancellor Childress, and everyone in the gallery as well as the special prosecutor. As I departed the courtroom, with ADA Stephenson by my side, the whole family lined up and stared me down and Stephenson grabbed my arm and stood in front of me.
Finally, the bond conditions were on file after months of begging for the court to protect me. However, shortly after, Sells “liked” my FB post. I reported it to ADA Stephenson and was told that he would file a violation on them if he could prove it was him, which should not have been hard to do. Then, RADIO SILENCE.
After weeks of sending emails and calling the victim’s advocate for answers, who always replied by letting me know that Stephenson wasn’t answering her either, I finally got very upset and emailed him to let him know how I was feeling. He responded with an ugly email saying that I had “misconstrued” what he’d said (although when I asked what I had “misconstrued” he did not reply) and that I was not to contact him again.
We were set for trial on February 1, 2022. But, only a few days prior, I received an email from ADA Stephenson letting me know that he had filed a Noelle Prosequi.
