You are on page 1of 195

Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 152

LINCOLN HOBBS (#4848)


SARAH ORME (#13827)
HOBBS & OLSON | CARPENTER HAZLEWOOD
466 East 500 South, Suite 300
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
801-519-2555
lincoln@haolaw.com
sarah@haolaw.com

MARK R. MOFFAT (#5112)


ANN MARIE TALIAFERRO (#8776)
BROWN BRADSHAW & MOFFAT
422 North 300 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84103
801-532-5297
mark@brownbradshaw.com
ann@brownbradshaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Conrad Truman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

CONRAD TRUMAN,

Plaintiff,
v.

OREM CITY, a Utah municipality; OREM COMPLAINT


CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, a division of AND
Orem City; OREM CITY POLICE OFFICER JURY DEMAND
THOMAS WALLACE, an individual; OREM
CITY POLICE OFFICER WILLIAM CROOK,
an individual; OREM CITY POLICE OFFICER
ORLANDO RUIZ, an individual; OREM CITY
POLICE OFFICER ART LOPEZ, an individual; Case No. _________
OREM CITY POLICE OFFICER TODD
FERRE, an individual; DEPUTY UTAH Judge _________
COUNTY ATTORNEY CRAIG JOHNSON, an
individual; OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE 1-
10, individuals; and ATTORNEY(S)
JOHN/JANE DOE 1-5, individuals.

Defendants.
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 2 of 152

Plaintiff CONRAD TRUMAN (Plaintiff, Conrad, or Truman), by and through

counsel, complains and alleges against Defendants as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Plaintiff Conrad Truman was detained, questioned, searched, arrested, criminally

charged, incarcerated, tried, convicted and imprisoned for more than 3 years after his wifes

death. In the absence of the misleading, false and outright fabricated evidence knowingly

advanced and used by these Defendants, Plaintiff would never have suffered the significant

emotional and mental anguish, as well as the deprivations of liberty, privacy and property he has

endured.

This is a civil rights action in which the Plaintiff seeks relief for the Defendants

violations of his rights as guaranteed by both the United States and Utah State Constitutions,

which rights are further secured by the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988.

This is further an action at law to redress a deprivation under color of statute, ordinance,

regulation, custom, or usage of a right, privilege, and immunity secured to the Plaintiff by the

Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States, as well as the

Constitution of the State of Utah.

Plaintiff seeks damages, both compensatory and punitive; affirmative and equitable

relief; costs and interest; and any an all further relief that this Court deems just and equitable.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This action arises under the United States Constitution and federal law, particularly under

the provisions of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the

United States, and 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988.

2
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 3 of 152

2. This action also arises under the Utah Constitution, and particularly the self-executing

provision under Art. 1, 13.

3. This action seeks redress for violations of the civil rights laws of the United States, and

jurisdiction is therefore invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1343 and 42 U.S.C. 1983.

4. This Court also has jurisdiction over any pendent State claims Plaintiff may wish to

bring, or has brought, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367.

5. The claims made in this Complaint occurred and arose in the State of Utah, in this

District, and in the Central Division. Venue is therefore proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391 and 28

U.S.C. 1331.

6. Plaintiff is seeking damages under federal law pursuant to the claims for relief specified

below, in amounts to be proved at trial.

7. This Court has authority to award costs and fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988.

PARTIES

8. Plaintiff Conrad Truman is an individual currently residing in Beaver County, State of

Utah. Conrad Trumans wife, Heidy Truman, died on October 1, 2012 in Orem, Utah.

9. Defendant Orem City (CITY) is a municipality organized under the laws of the State of

Utah. CITY is responsible for the supervision, training, official polices, customs, and actual

practices of its agents, including the Orem City Police Department and the officers employed by

them.

10. Defendant Orem City Police Department (OCPD) is a division of the CITY. OCPD is

also responsible for the supervision, training, official polices, customs, and actual practices of its

agents and the officers employed by them.

3
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 4 of 152

11. Defendant Thomas Wallace (WALLACE) is or was employed by the Orem City Police

Department as a police officer, and at all times applicable to this action, was acting under the

authority of the City and the OCPD in his capacity as an Orem City law enforcement officer.

WALLACE was lead investigator throughout the investigation and criminal prosecution of

Conrad Truman, and participated in the fabrication of evidence, making false and misleading

statements in numerous warrant and investigative subpoena affidavits, making false statements

to the Utah State Deputy Medical examiner, and in the criminal prosecution of Conrad Truman.

12. Defendant William Crook (CROOK) is or was employed by the Orem City Police

Department as a police officer, and at all times applicable to this action, was acting under the

authority of the City and the OCPD in his capacity as an Orem City law enforcement officer.

CROOK was one of the first responders in the Truman home in the hours surrounding Heidy

Trumans death, and participated in the illegal detention, interrogation, destruction of evidence,

fabrication of evidence, investigation, and in the criminal prosecution of Conrad Truman.

13. Defendant Art Lopez (LOPEZ) is or was employed by the Orem City Police

Department as a police officer, and at all times applicable to this action, was acting under the

authority of the City and the OCPD in his capacity as an Orem City law enforcement officer.

LOPEZ was one of the officers who responded to the Truman home in the hours surrounding

Heidy Trumans death, and participated in the illegal detention, interrogation, destruction of

evidence, fabrication of evidence, investigation, and in the criminal prosecution of Conrad

Truman.

14. Defendant Orlando Ruiz (RUIZ) is or was employed by the Orem City Police

Department as a police officer, and at all times applicable to this action, was acting under the

4
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 5 of 152

authority of the City and the OCPD in his capacity as an Orem City law enforcement officer.

RUIZ was one of the officers who responded to the Truman home in the hours surrounding

Heidy Trumans death, and participated in the illegal detention, interrogation, investigation, and

in the criminal prosecution of Conrad Truman.

15. Defendant Todd Ferre (FERRE) is or was employed by the Orem City Police

Department as a police officer, and at all times applicable to this action, was acting under the

authority of the City and the OCPD in his capacity as an Orem City law enforcement officer.

FERRE was one of the officers and a Sergeant who responded to the Truman home in the hours

surrounding Heidy Trumans death, and participated in the illegal detention, destruction of

evidence, interrogation, investigation, and in the criminal prosecution of Conrad Truman.

16. Defendant Craig Johnson (JOHNSON), at all times relevant herein, was a prosecutor

employed by the Utah County Attorneys Office, a governmental entity operating under the laws

and statutes of the State of Utah. JOHNSON responded to the Truman home in the hours

surrounding Heidy Trumans death and participated in manufacturing/fabricating evidence,

making false statements to the Utah State Deputy Medical Examiner, investigation and in the

criminal prosecution of Conrad Truman. Also, specific to JOHNSON:

a. JOHNSON served in both an investigatory role and prosecutorial role at various

times relevant here.

b. JOHNSON is not entitled to immunity, absolute or otherwise, as to the actions he

took that cast him in the role of an administrator or investigative officer rather than that of an

advocate;

c. Specifically, absolute immunity has been found not to extend to, among other

5
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 6 of 152

things: a prosecutors actions in advising the police in the investigative phase of a criminal case;1

a prosecutors actions in advising the police on interrogation methods or the existence of

probable cause;2 a prosecutors actions in fabricating evidence during the preliminary

investigation of a crime,3 a prosecutors review of an affidavit in support of a search warrant

prepared by law enforcement,4 and a prosecutor swearing under oath to false statements of fact

in an information, since he has become a complaining witness rather than a prosecutor.5

Generally, an attorney engages in an investigatory function if the attorney makes a preliminary

gathering of evidence that might ripen into a potential prosecution.

17. OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE 1-10 are individuals or law enforcement agencies. The

true names and capacities of Defendants named as OFFICER(S) JOHN AND JANE DOE are

presently unknown to the Plaintiff. Also:

a. Upon belief, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE 1-10 are law enforcement agencies,

officers, supervisors and/or civilian staff employed by the Orem City Police Department, the

Utah County Sheriffs Office, investigators with the Utah County Attorneys Office, or

employees of other cooperating agencies that participated in the investigation and prosecution of

Conrad Truman.

b. OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE 1-10 are police officers, supervisors, evidence

custodians or technicians, or others who interacted with the Plaintiff or the evidence at issue in

1
See Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 111 S. Ct. 1934, 114 L. Ed. 2d 547 (1991).
2
See, e.g., Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 111 S. Ct. 1934, 114 L. Ed. 2d 547 (1991); Mink v.
Suthers, 482 F.3d 1244 (10th Cir. 2007).
3
See Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 113 S.Ct. 2606, 125 L.Ed.2d 209 (1993).
4
See, e.g., Mink v. Suthers, 482 F.3d 1244 (10th Cir. 2007); Eden v. Voss, 105 F.App'x 234 (10th
Cir. 2004).
5
See Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (1997).

6
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 7 of 152

this case, and/or individuals who supervised, watched, or personally participated in the illegal

detention, interrogation, destruction or loss of evidence, fabrication of evidence, investigation or

prosecution of Conrad Truman.

c. OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE 1-10 are persons who, in the course of

discovery in this proceeding, may be found liable and to have personally acted or failed to act

knowingly and with reckless disregard for the truth.

d. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend his complaint to reflect these individuals or

entities as personal liability may become established or fully uncovered.

18. ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE 1-5 are individuals. The true names and capacities

of Defendants named as ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE 1-5 are presently unknown to

Plaintiff.

a. Upon belief, ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE 1-5 are other attorneys who

assisted or who advised law enforcement during the investigative stages of this case, and/or other

attorneys or prosecutors specifically employed by the Utah County Attorneys Office, a

governmental entity operating under the laws and statutes of the State of Utah.

b. ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE 1-5 are not entitled to immunity, absolute or

otherwise, with regard to any actions taken that cast the attorney in the role of an administrator

or investigative officer rather than an advocate.

c. ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE 1-5 are persons who, in the course of

discovery in this proceeding, may be found liable and to have personally acted or failed to act

knowingly and with reckless disregard for the truth.

d. The Plaintiff reserves the right to amend his complaint to reflect these individuals

7
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 8 of 152

or entities as liability may become established or fully uncovered.

19. This action is brought against Defendants WALLACE, CROOK, RUIZ, LOPEZ,

FERRE, JOHNSON, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE 1-10, and ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE

DOE 1-5 in both their individual and official capacities.

20. EACH DEFENDANT is a person under the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and is located

in this judicial district. Defendants serve the citizens of this judicial district, and while

performing their official duties, they act under the color of law.

21. EACH DEFENDANT was personally responsible and liable to Plaintiff in some

manner for their acts and/or omissions performed under color of law, for the events and

occurrences described hereafter, and for the resulting injury and damages to Plaintiff.

GENERAL FACTS APPLICABLE TO ALL CLAIMS

22. On October 1, 2012, at 12:37 a.m, Heidy Aline Truman (Heidy) was pronounced dead

at Utah Valley Regional Medical Center.

23. Heidy died as the result of a contact gunshot wound to her right temple.

24. The fatal shot was inflicted at her home in Orem, Utah.

25. The only two persons in the home at the time of the fatal shot were Heidy and her

husband, Conrad Truman.

26. At the time of Heidys death, the couple had been married approximately 3 years.

27. Heidy was 25 years old at the time of her death.

28. Conrad was 30 years old at the time of Heidys death.

29. The couple owned several firearms for both recreational and self-defense purposes.

30. Relevant to the firearms at issue in the case:

8
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 9 of 152

a. Conrad owned what was referred to and known as the silver-handled gun;

b. Heidy owned and held out as her gun what was referred to and known as the

black-handled gun. Conrad bought this firearm and gave it to Heidy as a gift;

c. Both guns were the same make and model of firearm Sigsauer P238;

d. The clips of both guns were interchangeable;

e. The guns were both available for both Heidy and Conrads use, despite any

question as to technical ownership;

f. On the night of Heidys death, both guns were loaded, ready, and accessible;

g. On the night of Heidys death, Conrads silver-handled gun was on the kitchen

table in its leather concealed carry holster;

h. On the night of Heidys death, Heidys black-handled gun was located on or in

Heidys night stand in the master bedroom next to her side of the bed;

i. Heidys black-handled gun had a magazine capable of holding 7 rounds and one

round in the chamber. To accommodate the eighth round, the gun had to be racked and in a

ready to fire position.

26. All material objective and/or forensic evidence supports the conclusion that Heidy died

as the result of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. This evidence includes the facts that:

a. The fatal wound was a contact gunshot wound to Heidys right temple;

b. Heidy was right-handed;

c. According to the autopsy report, a penetrating gunshot wound was located within

the scalp hair of the right temple. The defect was centered 7 centimeters (2.75 inches) above and

3 centimeters (1.18 inches) in front of the right external auditory meatus (ear canal);

9
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 10 of 152

d. The wound path was from right to left, angled slightly upward and minimally

from front to back; almost a straight through path;

e. The nature of the wound (contact wound to the temple, almost straight through

pathway) is highly indicative of and most consistent with a self-inflicted shot;

f. Deputy Utah Medical Examiner Dr. Edward Leis (Dr. Leis) testified that in his

30-plus years of experience, he has never (save for perhaps one time) performed an autopsy on a

homicide victim with a contact gunshot wound to the right temple with this type of wound path;

g. As part of the autopsy, Dr. Leis took gunshot residue (GSR) samples from the

right and left hands of Heidy Truman. Although the GSR samples were never sent for analysis

prior to trial number one, forensic analysis conducted after Conrads initial trial and conviction

revealed that Heidy had a significant amount of two and three component GSR particles on her

right hand consistent with her having fired the fatal shot. Heidy was right handed. She had only

one two-component gunshot residue particle on her left hand;

h. As part of the investigation, Orem Police Department evidence technician Patricia

Pikus (Pikus) took GSR samples from the right and left hands of Conrad Truman. Although

the GSR samples were never sent for analysis prior to trial number one, forensic analysis

conducted after Conrads initial trial and conviction revealed that Conrad had no two or three

component GSR particles on his hands consistent with him having fired the fatal shot;

i. Placing Heidys head at a location of convergence as determined by law

enforcements blood stain analysis and stringing process, it is established that Heidy fell within a

foot from the hallway opening into the kitchen and the area from where the shot was heard;

j. Forensic analysis revealed that the black-handled gun inflicted the fatal wound;

10
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 11 of 152

k. The black-handled gun that inflicted the fatal wound was kept in or on the night

stand on Heidys side of the bed;

l. Witnesses reported that the black-handled gun was observed in an area next to

Heidys body before an officer kicked it under the kitchen table;

m. During law enforcements search and investigative processing of the scene, the

spent casing from the black-handled gun was found in the hallway area in front of the bathroom

door, between a vacuum cleaner and a pair of socks;

n. During law enforcements search and investigative processing of the scene, there

were blood and blood droplets in the hallway area on the floor;

o. During law enforcements search and investigative processing of the scene, the

nylon/velcro holster which usually housed the black-handled gun was found on Heidys side of

the bed, on the same side of the room as the night stand where the black-handled gun was

usually kept;

p. Cell phone records establish that Heidy accessed her cell phone approximately

three minutes prior to Conrads call to 911;

q. During law enforcements search and investigative processing of the scene,

Heidys cell phone was found on her side of the bed, within arms reach of the night stand and the

black-handled gun which was kept there;

r. The cell phone evidence and the location where Heidys cell phone was found

shows that in the moments prior to the fatal shot, Heidy was within arms reach of the black-

handled gun in the master bedroom by her night stand;

s. No forensic analysis conducted (i.e. blood, serology, fingerprint, DNA, ballistics)

11
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 12 of 152

evidences that anyone other than Heidy Truman herself fired the fatal shot;

t. Based on the true and accurate evidence, no expert has, or can, conclude that

anyone other than Heidy Truman herself fired the fatal shot;

u. Heidy possessed several suicide risk factors.

EVENTS SURROUNDING HEIDY TRUMANS DEATH

The Couples Day

27. September 30, 2012, was a usual Sunday for the couple.

28. Heidy and Conrad spent the day eating a late brunch, shopping at local stores, and

eventually settled-in for a night of watching television.

29. The couple went to a local K-mart around 3 oclock in the afternoon.

30. The couple went to a local Target, arriving at approximately 4:20 in the afternoon, and

leaving about an hour later at approximately 5:20 p.m.

31. It is estimated that the couple returned home between 6-6:30 p.m.

32. The groceries were unloaded.

33. Conrad, at first, helped put groceries away.

34. Conrad then worked on his motorcycle for a period of time.

35. Conrad also worked on his Bronco and spent time cleaning the rims.

The Evening

36. At some point while Conrad was working on the vehicles, Conrad and Heidy began

drinking alcohol; specifically shots of Makers Mark whiskey.

37. Conrad has estimated that he consumed five or six shots of alcohol during the evening.

12
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 13 of 152

38. Conrad has estimated that Heidy consumed less alcohol than he did, and estimated about

four or five shots of alcohol.

39. Heidy was anxious to watch the season premiere of Dexter and on at least two

occasions went outside to prompt Conrad to finish what he was doing so they could watch the

show together.

40. Conrad took longer than expected and the show had to be recorded.

41. At some point, Conrad and Heidy watched the television shows Dexter and Homeland.

42. At some point, Heidy boiled eggs for egg salad sandwiches.

43. At some point, both Heidy and Conrad heard a noise outside the home.

44. In response, Conrad took one of his dogs and walked around the neighborhood to

investigate the noise.

45. Conrad has estimated that he and his dog returned approximately 20 minutes later.

46. The couple then began talking and debating about whether they should get another dog,

and they looked at photos of American Bull Terriers.

47. At some point, Heidy became upset and irritated with Conrad.

48. At some point thereafter, Heidy went into the bathroom to take a bath or shower.

49. Heidy locked the bathroom door, which was not unusual.

50. Conrad took the pin which was kept on the molding above the bathroom door,

unlocked the door, and went in.

51. Conrad entering the locked bathroom was not unusual, as both Heidy and Conrad often

walked in on each other in the bathroom.

52. Heidy told Conrad to get out.

13
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 14 of 152

53. Conrad believed that Heidy was upset or irritated with him, and so he left her alone.

54. At some point thereafter, Conrad took their second dog outside to use the bathroom.

55. At or around this time, Conrad called Heidys cell phone intending to leave her a

message.

56. Cell phone records show that a phone call was placed from Conrad Trumans cell phone

to Heidy Trumans cell phone on September 30, 2012 at 10:47:10 PM Mountain time.

57. Cell phone records show that the phone call was not answered by Heidy Trumans phone,

but the call was rejected which had to occur by pressing the end call or equivalent button

when the call was incoming.

58. Cell phone records show that upon rejection of the call, the call was sent to voicemail.

59. Cell phone records show that Heidy Trumans phone received a voicemail message on

September 30, 2012 at 10:48:44 PM Mountain time.

60. Cell phone records show that a message was left.

61. The message retrieved later by law enforcement consists of four seconds of silence.

62. Conrad estimates that after a few minutes outside with the dog, Conrad went back in

the house.

63. At some point after returning inside, Conrad believes he put his cell phone on the charger

in the master bedroom on his night stand.

64. At some point after returning inside, Conrad believes he played doggie games with his

dogs.

65. At some point after returning inside, Conrad was located in the kitchen area of the home.

66. At some point while Conrad was in the kitchen area, Conrad heard a door open.

14
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 15 of 152

67. Conrad only heard a door open but did not see a door open.

68. Conrad assumed it was the bathroom door he heard open because that is where

Heidy had been.

69. Cell phone records show that the voice mail on Heidys phone was accessed.

70. The read timestamp column in Heidys cell phone records indicates the time the

voicemail message was read, or listened to by the end user. This timestamp shows that Heidy

took an action to listen to the voicemail message at 10:55:58 PM Mountain time.

71. Heidys cell phone was found by law enforcement on Heidys side of the bed in the

master bedroom, within arms reach of Heidys night stand where the black-handled gun was

kept.

The Pop

72. Shortly after Conrad heard a door open, Conrad heard what he has described as a pop

or slap or tap sound.

73. Conrad has estimated that it could have been one to five minutes between the time he

heard a door open and the time he heard the pop sound.

74. The sound did not sound like a gunshot to Conrad.

75. Conrad looked over and moved toward the sound.

76. Conrad saw Heidy in the entryway to a small hallway that separates the kitchen from the

bathroom and bedroom hallway area.

77. From this point, everything happened fast.

78. Conrad moved that direction to see what happened.

15
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 16 of 152

79. Conrad does not recall if Heidy fell and hit the ground, or if he caught her and brought

her down.

80. Conrad clearly remembers that Heidy fell through the hallway entry to the floor of

the kitchen area.

81. Conrad did not know what had happened or what was wrong.

82. Heidy seemed to be choking and fighting for air.

83. Conrad saw blood coming out of Heidys mouth and nose.

84. Conrad attempted CPR.

85. Conrad was panicked and felt helpless.

86. Conrad knew he had to call 911.

87. Conrad tried to turn Heidys head to the side because she was gasping for air.

88. As Conrad turned Heidys head, a large amount of blood and brain matter poured out and

pooled around her body.

89. The sight of blood and other matter overwhelmed Conrad.

90. Conrad became hysterical.

91. To the best of Conrads recollection, he ran to get his cell phone from the master

bedroom and also maybe to the bathroom to get a towel to stop the blood.

92. The scene was gruesome.

93. Heidy lay on the kitchen floor, gasping for air and choking, as a large amount of blood

and brain matter pooled around her body.

16
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 17 of 152

Officers Respond

94. Conrad placed a frantic 911 call at 10:59 p.m., only approximately 3 minutes after Heidy

retrieved the voicemail from the master bedroom.

95. Conrad was panicked and hysterical when he called 911.

96. Conrad was so panicked and hysterical that the 911 dispatcher could not understand

Conrad at some points.

97. Conrad was so panicked and hysterical that the 911 dispatcher thought Conrad was a

female.

98. Although panicked, Conrad answered the 911 dispatchers questions and complied with

her instructions.

99. Conrad kept the line open with 911 and placed the call on speaker phone.

100. The 911 call was recorded and the recording speaks for itself.

101. The 911 call was ultimately disconnected by law enforcement officer CROOK upon his

arrival approximately 7 minutes after the 911 call was placed.

102. Although several law enforcement officers arrived at the same time, then-Corporal

William CROOK from the Orem City Police Department was the first officer to enter the

Truman home.

103. When CROOK pulled-up to the Truman house, Conrad was just outside the doorway

waving his arms and screaming for help.

104. CROOK ran to the front of the house and followed Conrad inside.

105. Orem City Officer Dan McKown followed behind CROOK.

17
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 18 of 152

106. Once inside, officers noticed that it was a split level home and on the right hand (north)

side, a set of stairs went directly up to the kitchen area.

107. CROOK followed Conrad up these stairs and noticed a female laying in a pool of blood.

108. The female was in the prone position.

109. There was a pool of blood and what appeared to be brain matter surrounding her body.

110. CROOK stated that her head was wet. CROOK did not know if her head was wet with

water but it was definitely wet and soaked with blood.

111. The female was not clothed.

112. The females head was positioned towards the east side of the home with her feet

extending west.

113. Conrad was hysterical and yelled for the officers to help her.

114. CROOK witnessed Conrad crouch next to the females body as a dog appeared over his

shoulder that was barking.

115. CROOK ordered Conrad to take the dog to the back bedroom.

116. Conrad complied and put the dog in the master bedroom at the north end of the house.

117. After securing the dog, Conrad immediately came back and again crouched down on the

side of Heidys body, kneeling in the blood pool.

118. Conrad tried to turn Heidys head towards him and attempted to blow into her mouth.

119. CROOK witnessed Heidy aspirate blood back out into Conrads face and on his person.

120. Conrad yelled at officers to save her, yelled at Heidy to stay alive, and yelled words to

the effect that he would kill them if she died or they did not save her.

18
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 19 of 152

121. Conrads anger and his threats were directed at people in order to get them to help save

Heidy.

122. Although officers use the words and phrases to describe Conrad as making threats or as

threatening, officers acknowledge that Conrad never put his hands on any officer.

123. Although officers use the words and phrases to describe Truman as making threats or

as threatening, officers acknowledge that Conrad was hysterical, wanted help for his wife, and

this is where the threats were coming from.

124. Conrad had blood on his pants which officers confirm was consistent with Conrad

kneeling in the pool of blood surrounding the body.

125. Conrad had blood on his shirt, hands, arms, and around and in his mouth which

officers confirm was consistent with Conrads efforts to comfort his wife and provide CPR.

126. Knowing that the paramedics had arrived, CROOK and Officer McKown physically

moved Conrad away from Heidys body.

127. CROOK and McKown placed Conrad on a chair that was pulled away from a small table

near Heidys body.

128. As Conrad sat on this chair, paramedics worked on Heidy in the blood pool close by.

129. Also as Conrad sat on this chair, CROOK began questioning Conrad as to what had

happened.

130. This questioning by CROOK literally occurred as CROOK physically stood between

Conrad and the paramedics as they were working on Heidy in the bloody pool.

131. Conrad soon noticed that his silver-handled gun was lying on the kitchen table in its

holster.

19
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 20 of 152

132. In order to notify the officers of the guns presence, Conrad picked up the holstered gun

and threw it off to the side of the table to a chair.

133. When Conrad picked up the holstered gun, blood from Conrads hands was transferred to

the firearm.

134. Additionally, when Conrad tossed the firearm, it hit briefly into the side of a cabinet and

left a blood transfer, before landing on the kitchen chair.

135. As CROOK questioned Conrad, Conrad was hysterical and did not make sense.

136. At this point, Conrad explained to the best of his ability that he had heard a pop sound,

he saw Heidy in the doorway entrance of the kitchen, then she fell to the ground.

137. Conrad also tried to explain that the sound he heard didnt sound like a gunshot.

138. At some point while paramedics were still working on Heidy, CROOK made Conrad

leave the kitchen area and ordered Conrad to back down the staircase with his hands up.

139. Conrad was then detained by another officer in the small living room area at the bottom

and to the south of the staircase.

140. Heidy was taken from the scene approximately 8-10 minutes after the arrival of the

paramedics.

141. Conrad was never told he was free to go.

142. Conrad was under the control and custody of law enforcement officers as Heidy was

taken out of the home and transported the hospital.

Officers Unconstitutionally Detain and Question Conrad at the Truman Home

143. Several officers had arrived at the Truman residence by the time Heidy was taken away

by the paramedics.

20
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 21 of 152

144. The officers on scene included Officers CROOK and McKown, as well as Orem City

Police Officers Chris Watson, Art LOPEZ, Chris Elias and Sgt. Todd FERRE.

145. Once the ambulance left, FERRE directed McKown to start a crime scene log to

document who was coming and going. (Log).

146. The Log indicates that Heidy left at 2315" and arrived at Utah Valley Regional Medical

Center at 2322".

147. FERRE sent Officer Watson to follow the ambulance and stay with Heidy.

148. After Heidy was taken from the home, and for approximately the next 50 minutes, the

several officers on scene refused to take Conrad to the hospital until he calmed down.

149. The scene was bloody and gruesome.

150. The scene was chaotic.

151. A portion of the events that occurred while Conrad remained at the home was audio

recorded by two separate officers: CROOK and LOPEZ.

152. These recordings speak for themselves, but evidence that:

a. Conrad was distraught and traumatized;

b. Conrad asked several times to go be with his wife;

c. Conrad asked officers to test his hands and his silver handled gun in an effort to

show that he had not shot a weapon, and in the hopes that officers would take him to be with his

wife;

d. Conrad asked officers to look or let him show them where Heidy kept her gun in

the bedroom;

21
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 22 of 152

e. Conrad asked several times to be allowed to aid his dogs incessantly barking in

the background;

f. Conrad asked several times to call family or friends, or for the officers to call

family or friends, to come be with him.

153. At some point, Ms. Renee Flitton, a victim advocate employed by the Orem City

Police Department arrived on scene.

154. Ms. Flitton entered the home and made contact with Conrad in the living room area north

of the stairway leading directly up to the kitchen.

155. Officers thereafter continued to pepper Conrad with questions.

156. Ms. Flitton also questioned Conrad as to what had occurred.

157. Ms. Flitton smelled the odor of alcohol on Conrads breath.

158. Ms. Flitton observed blood on Conrads clothing, pants, and arms.

159. Conrad remained anxious, fidgety, and could not sit still.

160. Conrad paced and at times, spit in a garbage can in the corner of the room because his

mouth was dry and raw, and had remnants of Heidys blood from Conrads efforts at CPR.

161. Conrads two dogs, which had been secured in two separate rooms, were panicked and

barking incessantly.

162. Worried because the dogs were scared and distressed, Conrad asked on multiple

occasions for officers to allow him to take the dogs out to the back yard so they would stop

barking.

163. Officers acknowledge that the barking seemed to affect Conrads concentration and

angst.

22
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 23 of 152

164. During this time period in the home, Officers, and particularly CROOK, LOPEZ and

FERRE, denied Conrads requests to show officers where Heidys gun was kept in the master

bedroom.

165. During this time period in the home, Officers, and particularly CROOK, LOPEZ and

FERRE, refused to allow Conrad to physically show them where he saw Heidy after he heard the

pop.

166. During this time period in the home, Officers, and particularly CROOK, LOPEZ and

FERRE, failed and/or refused to allow Conrad access to a phone to call family or friends to come

be with him.

167. During this time period in the home, Officers, and particularly CROOK, LOPEZ and

FERRE, failed and/or refused to themselves call any family or friends to come be with Conrad.

Nor did victim advocate Flitton seek to call family or friends to come comfort Conrad.

168. During this time period in the home, Conrad asked for his family (specifically to include

his father and sister) on multiple occasions, and requested that somebody call them or that he be

allowed to do so.

169. During this time period in the home, Officers, and particularly CROOK, LOPEZ and

FERRE, ignored Conrads statement of his rights:You know, sir, I can call a lawyer right now, I

can get a friend to comfort me. By these statements, Conrad was clearly indicating that he

wished for the assistance of counsel, a friend, or a family member at this difficult time.

170. During this time period in the home, Officers, and particularly CROOK, LOPEZ and

FERRE, ignored Conrads request to have an attorney called.

23
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 24 of 152

171. During this time period in the home, Conrad was not allowed to move freely about the

house because officers considered this a potential crime scene.

172. Conrad was traumatized and anxious.

173. Officers, and upon belief LOPEZ and/or FERRE, threatened to handcuff Conrad if he

did not calm down.

174. In this traumatized and anxious state, officers and Ms. Flitton continued to ask Conrad

questions about the events of the evening.

175. Conrad literally begged officers to take him to be with his wife.

176. Conrad tried to comply with the officers requests and answer their questions so that

officers would finally take him to the hospital to be with his wife.

177. At some point, LOPEZ told Conrad: Conrad, lets go wash your hands, and walked

him to the bathroom downstairs in the basement.

178. As LOPEZ and Conrad walked downstairs, FERRE told LOPEZ not to wash Conrads

hands.

179. LOPEZ washed Conrads hands, or allowed Conrad to wash his hands, even though his

sergeant, FERRE, expressly stated not to.

180. CROOK reported: Officer Lopez [] asked Truman to wash his bloody hands in the

bathroom at the bottom of the stairs below the living room. After a minute, they came back

to the living room and began talking.

181. No other officer on scene, including CROOK, FERRE, or OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE

DOE stopped the hand washing.

24
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 25 of 152

182. In washing Conrads hands, LOPEZ destroyed and/or failed to preserve crucial

exculpatory evidence to wit, Conrads preserved hands and an opportunity to demonstrate that

his hands were free of gunshot residue prior to washing.

183. In allowing Conrads hands to be washed, CROOK, FERRE, AND OFFICER(S)

JOHN/JANE DOE destroyed and/or failed to preserve crucial exculpatory evidence to wit,

Conrads preserved hands and an opportunity to demonstrate that his hands were free of

Gunshot Residue prior to washing.

184. According to the Log, Truman left the residence and was taken to the hospital at 0006

51 minutes after Heidy was taken from the home.

185. Conrad was driven to the hospital by LOPEZ.

186. Ms. Flitton followed in her own vehicle.

187. As Conrad got into the police vehicle, Conrad again asked for LOPEZ or Ms. Flitton to

call his family.

188. LOPEZ refused and expressed that Conrad was being unreasonable in the request.

189. To this point, Conrad had not been advised of his Miranda warnings.

190. Conrads trip to the hospital with LOPEZ was audio recorded and the recording speaks

for itself.

191. After Conrad left, CROOK walked through the entire home and made observations as to

the location of certain blood evidence, the conditions of all windows and doors in the home, and

the back yard.

192. CROOK reports: Upon looking around the house, I noticed that the bathtub was filled

with water []. The room was very humid.

25
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 26 of 152

193. CROOK and OFFICER(s) JOHN/JANE DOE searched through the entire house prior to

any warrant being obtained.

Heidy Truman Passes Away/ Officers Unconstitutionally Detain and Interrogate


Conrad Truman at the Hospital and Police Station

194. Upon arriving at the hospital, LOPEZ had Conrad wait with Ms. Flitton.

195. Some time thereafter, Conrad and Ms. Flitton were escorted into the emergency room

with at least one officer where hospital personnel were working on Heidy.

196. Heidys head was bloody and had various tubes inserted and medical devices attached.

197. Blood and brain matter was caked in Heidys hair.

198. The gaping head wound was clearly visible.

199. Heidys hands had been bagged upon the direction of officer Watson.6

200. An Orem City Police Officer, upon information and belief Officer Watson, admonished

Conrad not to take too long because this was a crime scene.

201. Conrad went to Heidy, tenderly hugged her and stroked her hair, and was allowed

only a brief few minutes.

202. Conrad was then escorted from the room.

203. After leaving the room, LOPEZ directed Conrad to change his clothes and took them as

evidence. No warrant was sought or obtained for these clothes.

204. Some period of time thereafter, the doctor notified Conrad that Heidy had passed away.

6
Officer Watson reports that around 2344 hours, he went with Heidy while she had a CT scan.
While she was in the CT Scan, Watson asked the Doctors to put her hands in paper bags to preserve any
evidence that might be needed. Thereafter, Watson reports that the first time medical staff let Conrad in
to see Heidy, Watson realized her hands were not in paper bags. Watson states that he asked Conrad not
to touch her for a minute and asked the medical staff to place her hands in the paper bags, at which time
both hands were placed in paper bags. Watson told Conrad this needed to be done in order to preserve
any evidence.

26
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 27 of 152

205. Some period of time thereafter, Conrad was again escorted into the room with Heidys

body in order to pay his last respects.

206. No one from Conrads family had yet arrived to the hospital. Upon information and

belief, no one from Conrads family had yet been called.

207. The room with Heidys body was filled with complete strangers to Conrad, to include

multiple law enforcement officers, Orem City evidence technician Patricia Pikus, and medical

personnel, all observing Conrads every move.

208. Conrad went to Heidy and kissed her on the head through a blood soaked sheet.

209. Conrad then went to Heidys feet and grieved.

210. Conrad was given no opportunity to be alone with his wife before or after she died, and

was, at all times, under the observation, direction, custody and/or control of at least one police

officer.

211. After a few minutes, Conrad was escorted directly to a nearby empty hospital room and

again interrogated by two Orem City police officers, RUIZ and LOPEZ.

212. Conrads interrogation at the hospital was audio recorded and the recording speaks for

itself.

213. RUIZ writes in a police report that the questioning at UVRMC began at approximately

1:20 a.m and ended at approximately 2:03 a.m.

214. Neither RUIZ nor LOPEZ advised Conrad of his Miranda warnings.

215. Conrad was distraught and traumatized, and still under the effect of alcohol.

216. Conrad asked several times to go be with his family.

217. Law enforcement officers guarded the door.

27
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 28 of 152

218. At some point, evidence technician Patricia Pikus took gunshot residue samples from

Conrads hands. No warrant was sought or obtained for these samples.

219. Some amount of time later, Conrad was transported to the Orem Police Department by

LOPEZ.

220. Conrads transport to the Orem Police Department was audio recorded and the recording

speaks for itself.

221. LOPEZ did not advise Conrad of his Miranda rights at this time.

222. At the Orem Police Department, Conrad was detained for approximately 45 minutes in

an interrogation room with LOPEZ.

223. The detention and interrogation at the Orem Police Department was audio and video

recorded and the recording speaks for itself.

224. The video recording of the interrogation room shows that Conrad entered with LOPEZ

at approximately 3:42 a.m. and Conrad was allowed to go use the bathroom at approximately

4:26 a.m.7

225. LOPEZ did not advise Conrad of his Miranda rights during this time.

226. Conrad was then brought back into the room at approximately 4:28:50 a.m. by

Officers RUIZ and CROOK and detained for approximately two more hours.

227. According to the video recording, RUIZ advised Conrad of his Miranda rights at

4:30:52 a.m.

228. While the recording speaks for itself, by way of summary, the recording evidences the

following:

7
The times cited herein are taken from the video recording unless otherwise noted.

28
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 29 of 152

a. Conrad was still in shock, traumatized, and likely experiencing the effects of

alcohol;

b. Throughout the detention, Conrad asked multiple times to leave;

c. Throughout the detention, Conrad asked multiple times to go be with family;

d. Throughout the detention, Conrad expressed on multiple occasions that he was

suffering and had just experienced the trauma of his wifes death;

e. Throughout the detention with RUIZ and CROOK, Conrad attempted to leave

on multiple occasions but was denied his right;

f. Throughout the detention with RUIZ and CROOK, Conrad expressed on

multiple occasions that he did not know what happened.

229. The recording shows that two phlebotomists arrived to take Conrads blood at

approximately 4:53 a.m.

230. A warrant had been sought and obtained for Conrads blood.8

231. When the phlebotomists finished drawing Conrads blood, Conrad walked out of the

room at 5:09:58 a.m.

232. Conrad was quickly shepherded back into the room by RUIZ and CROOK at 5:11 a.m.

233. The detention and interrogation continued and became more confrontational.

234. Eventually, as the detention and interrogation seemingly neared an end, RUIZ expressed

he thought they were finished, at which time Conrad sought to go to the bathroom.

8
As set forth below, this warrant was invalid since it was not based upon the requisite showing of
probable cause, and further, because the affidavit in support contained false and misleading statements or
omissions made knowingly or in reckless disregard for the truth.

29
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 30 of 152

235. At 5:54 a.m., Conrad stood up to leave but CROOK stopped him and continued the

detention and questioning.

236. Conrad is allowed to leave the room at 5:57:48 to go to the bathroom. Both CROOK

and RUIZ leave the interrogation room.

237. At 6:01, CROOK brings Conrad back in the room and detains him further.

238. CROOK stands in the doorway, blocking the only exit to the room.

239. CROOK orders Conrad to go sit in the chair across the room because he doesnt

want him by the door. (6:03:38).

240. Conrad is upset with CROOKs treatment, but complies.

241. CROOK detains, belittles, and baits Conrad, treating him with disrespect.

242. CROOKs actions are cruel and unreasonable.

243. CROOK becomes more confrontational, orders Conrad to look him in the eyes, and

accuses Conrad of shooting his wife. (6:06:05).

244. Conrad is clearly upset and wants to leave and be away from CROOK.

245. Conrad attempts to leave the interrogation room. (6:06:27).

246. CROOK blocks Conrad and orders stay here. (6:06:28).

247. Conrad asserts that he is not under arrest and wants to leave.

248. CROOK demands that Conrad sit down multiple times.

249. Conrad attempts to leave again and tells CROOK that CROOK is not going to treat

[him] like this. (6:06:36).

250. CROOK again blocks Conrad from leaving the room and orders him to sit down.

30
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 31 of 152

251. CROOK orders Conrad to sit down multiple times, and threatens, Conrad do you

want to leave? Sit down (6:06:47).

252. Conrad asserts his right: I can leave if I want.

253. CROOK again orders Conrad to go sit down. (6:06:50).

254. Conrad is upset but sits down.

255. Conrad expresses that he should not have to be treated as he was.

256. CROOK continues to detain, taunt and antagonize Conrad for several more minutes.

257. RUIZ eventually reappears and Conrad again attempts to leave.

258. Upon information and belief, RUIZ and/or other officers, including OFFICER(S)

JOHN/JANE DOE and LOPEZ watched CROOKs treatment and illegal detention of Conrad

and did nothing to stop the continued unreasonable seizure and questioning.

259. Conrad again asks and/or attempts to leave. (6:08:33).

260. RUIZ does not allow Conrad to leave. (6:08:40).

261. Conrad seeks RUIZs help from CROOKs behavior.

262. RUIZ closes the door of the interrogation room and he detains Conrad for several

more minutes.

263. RUIZ and Conrad walk out of the room at 6:15:04.

264. Upon belief, CROOK and/or other officers, including OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE

and LOPEZ watched RUIZs treatment and illegal detention of Conrad and did nothing to stop

the continued unreasonable seizure and questioning.

265. Throughout the interrogation, Conrad adamantly maintained, and did so throughout the

entire evening, that he did not hurt or shoot his wife and that he did not know what happened.

31
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 32 of 152

266. Throughout the interrogation, and although he became upset and frustrated with the

officers treatment, Conrad never acted threatening, assaultive, or belligerent toward the

officers.

Statements Made by Conrad Truman

267. Overall, there are seven recordings taken in the hours surrounding Heidy Trumans

death. These recording include:

a. The 911 dispatch call;

b. A recording initiated by CROOK at the Truman home before Conrad was taken

to the hospital;

c. A recording initiated by LOPEZ at the Truman home before Conrad was taken to

the hospital;9

d. A recording of Conrads transport from the Truman home to Utah alley Regional

Medical Center (UVRMC);

e. The recorded interrogation involving RUIZ and LOPEZ at UVRMC;

f. A recording of Conrads transport from UVRMC to the Orem Public Safety

Building (OPS);

g. The recorded detention and interrogation involving LOPEZ and then CROOK

and RUIZ at the OPS.

268. Additional recordings exist of Conrads interaction with officers and others, including:

a. A telephone conversation recorded by WALLACE on October 3, 2012, when

9
Although the CROOK and LOPEZ recordings capture a large portion of the same happenings at
the Truman home, the two recordings begin and end at different times.

32
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 33 of 152

Conrad called to inquire about the property officers seized, and requesting photographs from his

cell phone for Heidys funeral;

b. A surreptitious audio and video recording made by Heidys brother-in-law, Jason

Keller, on October 4, 2012, at the direction of Orem police officers, and upon belief, RUIZ, Sgt.

Leany, Detective Savage, Detective Rich, and Lt. Mallinson;10

c. A recording of Heidys funeral and persons speaking by her casket, which was

made at the direction of Orem police officers.11

d. Two audio and video recordings of Conrad on October 10, 2012 when he went to

the OPS with his sister in order to give palm and fingerprints.12

e. An interview with Officers WALLACE and James Park October 18, 2012,

approximately two weeks after Heidys death wherein officers sought to question Conrad at

ICU Medical, Conrads place of employment.

f. An interview with RUIZ on October 31, 2012 during the service of a search

warrant at the Truman home, wherein RUIZ expresses that he believes Conrad loved Heidy, but

Conrads story does not make sense and RUIZ believes Conrad accidentally hurt her because

10
Jason Keller also drew a diagram as to what Conrad explained which was given to officers.
This diagram shows Heidys body and feet close to the hallway entrance as Conrad described to him.
11
A warrant was sought and obtained to place a recording device in Heidys casket. As set forth
below, this warrant was invalid since it was not based upon the requisite showing of probable cause, and
further, because the affidavit in support contained false and misleading statements or omissions made
knowingly or in reckless disregard for the truth.
12
A warrant was sought and obtained for Conrads prints. As set forth below, this warrant was
invalid since it was not based upon the requisite showing of probable cause, and further, because the
affidavit in support contained false and misleading statements or omissions made knowingly or in
reckless disregard for the truth. Additionally, part of these recordings are of Conrads sister speaking on
the phone in the interrogation room while Conrad is with officers elsewhere. It is believed she is
speaking with an attorney.

33
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 34 of 152

this wasnt a suicide. During this questioning, Conrad again indicated that he will go over it

again with officers with a lawyer.13

g. A telephone conversation with Scott Finch, an investigator with the Utah County

Attorneys Office, on June 18, 2013. Therein, Conrad made mention that officers broken down

his door just a week prior when officers were there to do their scene reconstruction, and also

discusses the previous encounter with RUIZ on Halloween. Conrad expresses frustration and

believes he is being harassed by police.14

269. Additional recordings were also made of various officers interviews with potential

witnesses.

270. The recordings specifically made in the moments and hours after Heidys death were

made while Conrad was traumatized, in shock, and experiencing the effects of alcohol

consumption.

271. Throughout all the recordings, Conrad repeatedly and consistently expressed that he did

not know what happened, expressed confusion, and/or expressed that he did not know how to

explain the events he saw.

272. The recordings themselves are the best evidence of what was actually said, as well as the

tone, demeanor and context surrounding the statements.

273. However, despite Conrads confusion and memory gaps due to the trauma he

13
A warrant was sought and obtained. As set forth below, this warrant was invalid since it was
not based upon the requisite showing of probable cause, and further, because the affidavit in support
contained false and misleading statements or omissions made knowingly or in reckless disregard for the
truth.
14
A warrant was sought and obtained to enter the Truman residence. As set forth below, this
warrant was invalid since it was not based upon the requisite showing of probable cause, and further,
because the affidavit in support contained false and misleading statements or omissions made knowingly
or in reckless disregard for the truth.

34
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 35 of 152

experienced, the recordings show that Conrad consistently and repeatedly explained the

following material facts regarding the moments surrounding the shot:

a. He was in the kitchen and he thought his wife was in the bathroom;

b. While he was in the kitchen, he heard a door open;

c. He did not see Heidy come out of the bathroom;

d. Some time shortly after hearing a door open, it could have been one minute or it

could have been five minutes, he heard a pop sound;

e. The sound did not sound like a gunshot;

f. He looked over and moved toward the location of the noise;

g. He saw Heidy in the hallway entry, a location described as the hallway, the

hallway outside the bathroom, and the wall by the printer;

h. Heidy went through the hallway entrance to the floor of the kitchen;

i. Conrad went to her and tried to aid her;

j. Heidy appeared to be choking and gasping for air;

k. Conrad did not know what was wrong;

l. Conrad tried to give her CPR;

m. He saw blood and other matter that scared him;

n. He knew he could not help and had to call 911;

o. Because she appeared to be choking or fighting for air, Conrad turned her head

and a great amount of blood poured out;

p. Conrad admittedly panicked and became hysterical when he saw the enormous

amount of blood and other material in her hair;

35
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 36 of 152

q. Conrad did not see Heidy with a gun;

r. With regard to Heidys location, Conrad made numerous statements that he saw

her in the hallway area by the wall near the table with the printer after he heard the pop;

s. Conrad also consistently expressed that he did not know what happened,

expressed confusion, and/or expressed that he did not know how to explain the events he saw;

t. In fact, a review of the recordings evidence that on approximately 90 occasions,

u. Conrad indicated that he did not know what happened, did not know how to

explain what he saw or otherwise expressed confusion as to what had occurred;

v. In his state of shock and trauma, Conrad asked questions and posed hypotheses

to officers as to what might have happened in response to officer questioning. Law

enforcement officers admit that Conrad was hypothesizing and not making statements of fact;

w. Conrad repeatedly asked officers what happened;

x. Because of the neighborhood he lived in, Conrad questioned whether his wife

could have been shot by someone outside of the home through the bathroom window;

y. Also because of the neighborhood they live in, Conrad stated: Thats why I

dont know [whats] going on, that's why I think someone . . . shot her, I don't know what's

going on. I don't know if she shot herself, I don't know. Although questioning whether Heidy

could have shot herself, Conrad made statements refusing to believe that Heidy would

intentionally kill herself;

z. When asked about the firearms, Conrad tried to explain that Heidys gun was

like his mothers (which was a black-handled firearm); that it was usually kept in a velcro case

36
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 37 of 152

in Heidys night stand; but the last place he saw the gun was on top of her night stand on her

side of the bed where she had kept it when he had recently been in Chicago for a week;

aa. When asked whether Heidy would have had time to come out of the bathroom

and go into the bedroom and get the gun and shoot herself right at the doorway of the hallway

between the time Conrad heard the door open and then the pop sound, Conrad confirmed that

she would have had time to do so;

bb. When asked about finances, Conrad explained that the couple was not struggling

financially; they had just refinanced their home and were looking to buy a new house; explained

that he had just sold some stock from his work and they had a lot of money they needed to put

somewhere, so they had met with a financial planner who wanted to sell them a whole life

insurance policy for investment purposes, but Conrad didnt want to;

cc. When asked, Conrad told officers that Heidy had a hard childhood and did not

get along with her mother;

dd. When asked, Conrad explained that Heidy gets a little bit weird and becomes

emotional and another side comes out when she has a little too much to drink;

ee. When asked, Conrad denied that there had been, or could have been, anybody

else in the home that could have shot Heidy.

Officers Investigate the Scene

274. Orem City Police Detective Thomas WALLACE was on-call the evening of September

30, 2012.

275. WALLACE received a call at approximately 11:10 p.m. concerning a shooting.

37
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 38 of 152

276. WALLACE then spoke with Sgt. FERRE on the phone who gave WALLACE

preliminary information.

277. When WALLACE arrived at the Truman residence approximately 55 minutes later,

Conrad was just leaving for the hospital.

278. The Log indicates that WALLACE and evidence technician Patricia Pikus arrived at the

Truman residence at 12:05 a.m.

279. The Log indicates that Conrad left the Truman residence at 12:06 a.m.

280. Upon arriving at the Truman residence, WALLACE was briefed by FERRE and

CROOK.

281. Wallace then contacted Deputy Utah County Attorney Craig JOHNSON.

282. The Log indicates JOHNSON arrived at the Truman residence at 1:03 a.m. and left at

1:23 a.m.

283. WALLACE then froze the scene, drafted and sought search warrants, and the home

was processed throughout the early morning hours until finally released later that day, October

1, 2012, at approximately noon.

284. WALLACE was the lead detective on this case.

285. Upon information and belief, JOHNSON advised WALLACE throughout the entire

investigation and prosecution of Conrad Truman. ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE may also

have advised WALLACE during the investigation of Conrad Truman.

286. Upon information and belief, WALLACE kept JOHNSON advised and briefed as to the

status of the investigation and the facts and the circumstances that developed. WALLACE may

38
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 39 of 152

have also kept ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE advised and briefed as to the status of the

investigation and the facts and the circumstances that developed.

287. As lead detective, WALLACE assigned various other officers duties in the immediate

hours surrounding Heidy Trumans death, to include:

a. Directing Lt. Joshua Adams to attend Heidy Trumans autopsy which occurred

at approximately 9 a.m. on October 1, 2012;

b. Directing Detective Brad Rich and Detective J. Bailey to canvass the

neighborhood and obtain witness statements from neighbors;

c. Directing evidence technician Patricia Pikus to go to the hospital to take pictures

of Heidys body, to take GSR from Conrad Trumans hands, and to return to the Truman

residence to help photograph and process the scene;

d. Directing RUIZ to go to the hospital, remain with Conrad the entire time, and to

question him and get Conrads statement;

e. Directing other officers to help document and process the scene; and

f. Eventually, at approximately 5:30 a.m., contacting Doug Squire from the Utah

County Sheriffs Office to attempt to determine the location where the shot occurred. The Log

indicates that Doug Squire arrived on scene at 6:27 a.m. The Log indicates that Scott Finch

arrived on scene at 6:47 a.m. to aid.15 Mr. Squire and Mr. Finch both log out of the scene at

9:38 a.m.

288. After leaving the scene to draft an affidavit and to obtain warrants, WALLACE and

other officers returned to the Truman residence at approximately 3:20 a.m.

15
Scott Finch was called by JOHNSON to aid in the stringing process and scene
processing.

39
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 40 of 152

289. According to the Log, Officers Bailey and CROOK returned to the Truman residence at

3:20 a.m.

290. According to the Log, WALLACE returned to the Truman residence at 3:27 a.m.

291. According to the Log, evidence technician Pikus returned to the Truman residence at

3:32 a.m.

292. Officers remained at the scene while WALLACE sought warrants. Upon information

and belief, FERRE and Officer Elias stayed and secured the scene.

a. These officers went into the Truman home and took the dogs out of the two

separate bedrooms wherein they had been secured;

b. Upon information and belief, in doing so, items were moved, a large photograph

fell from the living room wall, and officers walked through the scene and/or blood pool an

unknown number of times;

c. It is unknown what other items of evidentiary value were moved or further

contaminated while WALLACE sought warrants.

293. WALLACE acknowledges that the scene was contaminated.

294. WALLACE notes that everything in the immediate kitchen area had blood on it;

295. WALLACE acknowledges that the area had been walked through by numerous people

and animals, including Conrad, two dogs, several paramedics and several officers.

296. As WALLACE and others processed and photographed the scene, relevant observations

and evidence were noted as follows:

a. A towel with blood in it was observed on the kitchen floor. WALLACE

acknowledged this towel with blood was consistent with Truman going to the bathroom to get a

40
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 41 of 152

towel to apply pressure to try and stop Heidys bleeding;

b. A blood transfer was observed on the bathroom light fixture and in the sink.

WALLACE acknowledged this blood was consistent with Truman going to the bathroom to get

a towel to apply pressure to try and stop Heidys bleeding;

c. A blood transfer was observed on the master bedroom door. WALLACE

acknowledged this blood was consistent with Conrad going into the bedroom to get his cell

phone to call 911, and also consistent with Conrad securing his dog in the master bedroom once

officers arrived;

d. A blood transfer was observed on the phone charger on Conrads night stand.

WALLACE acknowledged this blood was consistent with Conrad going into the bedroom to get

his cell phone to call 911;

e. A blood transfer was observed on the handle of the silver-handled gun that had

been thrown into a chair, as well as a transfer just above it on the wall. WALLACE

acknowledged this blood was consistent with CROOKs observation of Conrad picking up the

silver handled gun and tossing it in the chair, having first hit into the wall;

f. Blood droplets and transfers were observed going down the stairs, out the door,

and to the outside area of the home. WALLACE acknowledged this blood was consistent with

the paramedics transporting a bleeding Heidy Truman outside the home and placing her on a

gurney outside the front door;

g. A bullet casing was found just outside the bathroom door next to a vacuum

cleaner and a pair of socks. Photographs taken of the scene and later forensic analysis confirm

that the casing did not have blood on it;

41
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 42 of 152

h. Blood was observed in the hallway area, on the baseboard and on the floor.

Photographs taken of the scene confirm presence of blood evidence in the hallway area;

i. Heidys cell phone was located on the bed in the master bedroom, on Heidys

side of the bed within arms reach of Heidys night stand. There were no blood transfers on the

bedding or Heidys cell phone. Photographs taken of the scene and later forensic analysis

confirm an absence of blood evidence on these items;

j. Conrads cell phone was located on the floor of the kitchen, and had been placed

there by Conrad when he put the 911 dispatcher on speaker. There was some blood on

Conrads cell phone and the floor by it. WALLACE and CROOK acknowledged this blood was

consistent with Conrad touching the phone in calling 911. Officer Crook disconnected the 911

call;

k. The silver-handled gun was located in its holster, on a chair by the table where

he tossed it in CROOKs presence;

l. The black-handled gun was located under the kitchen table, where it had been

surreptitiously kicked by CROOK as he was questioning Conrad;

m. WALLACE discovered the nylon and velcro holster which held the black-

handled gun in the master bedroom, under a dog bed on the floor at the foot of the north wall on

Heidys side of bed. WALLACE acknowledges that the dog in that room had been upset and

frantic and tore the room up;

n. The bath tub still had water in it, and the shower curtains were on the outside of

the tub. Officers did not test the temperature of the water or analyze it for residue. No pictures

were taken of the drained tub;

42
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 43 of 152

o. Photographs taken of the scene depict razors on the tub ledge;

p. Photographs taken of the scene depict open soap and shampoo bottles on the tub

ledge;

q. Photographs taken of the scene depict a plugged in blow dryer located on the

sink in front of the bathroom mirror;

r. Photographs taken of the scene depict items of female clothing on the bathroom

floor near the tub. No blood was found on this clothing. Photographs taken of the scene and

later forensic analysis confirm an absence of blood evidence on these items;

s. Photographs taken of the scene depict dishes in the sink that appear to be dirty

with egg salad, as well as a bowl of egg salad in the refrigerator.

297. JOHNSON returned to the Truman residence for approximately two hours in the early

morning, and aided in the stringing and analyses of the blood evidence. JOHNSON contacted

Scott Finch, an investigator with the Utah County Attorneys Office in order to aid Doug

Squire, an investigator with the Utah County Sheriffss Office, in the analysis.

298. The Log indicates that JOHNSON arrived on scene at 5:30 a.m. and left at 7:38 a.m.

299. The Log indicates that JOHNSON again returned at 8:47 a.m. and left at 8:53 a.m.

300. WALLACE noted in his police report that before he released the scene: I made a hand

sketch of the upstairs area where Heidy was located and I pulled measurements with a tape

measure. WALLACE later verified under oath that he pulled the measurements of the house

with a hand tape measure, fixed points through the entire house; that he pulled it the best

[he] could with what we had at the scene; and that he did so because he was curious to see how

far Heidy had actually traveled to be where she was found by medics and police.

43
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 44 of 152

301. No other officer has written a report or testified in any manner indicating that any other

person but WALLACE was responsible for helping to measure or produce scene diagrams in

any way.

302. Based upon WALLACEs view and processing of the scene, WALLACE reports that

he became suspicious of Conrad because: It appeared unlikely Heidy Truman had shot herself

in the head (intentionally or accidentally) and walked approximately 12.5 feet to where she had

fallen.

SUMMARY OF THE SUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

303. For the next several months, WALLACE investigated this case as a homicide.

304. Although WALLACE claims to have investigated suicide as a cause of Heidys death,

there is no evidence that suicide was investigated in any real manner.

305. Within the first hours after Heidys death, Heidys side of the family (Wagner Family)

was informed as to the officers belief that Conrad shot and murdered their loved one.

Members of Heidys family immediately began contacting Heidys close friends.

306. In the days following Heidys death, WALLACE and other officers, including Officers

Josh Adams, Brad Rich, and others, contacted Heidys employer (Air Liquide, in Lehi, Utah),

co-workers, and friends, and explicitly or inferentially communicated to them that Heidys

death was suspicious and that it was not self-inflicted. Several of these witnesses revealed that

they had already been contacted by members of the Wagner family.

307. On October 4, 2012, WALLACE met with all Detectives and officers involved in the

case; discussed the case as a group, and WALLACE compiled a list of tasks needing to be done

in this case. WALLACE assigned the tasks to himself and other officers and detectives in the

44
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 45 of 152

Orem investigations division. Of note, the only apparent task not assigned was the task of scene

diagrams.

308. Also on October 4, 2012, RUIZ and other Orem City Officers sought the assistance of

Heidys brother-in-law, Jason Keller, to surreptitiously record Conrad and confront him with

killing Heidy. No warrant was obtained for this intrusion into Conrads home even though Mr.

Keller worked as an agent of the police.

309. In the days following Heidys death, WALLACE sought a warrant to bug the casket at

Heidys funeral.16

310. In the days following Heidys death, WALLACE made arrangements to locate an out-

of-state facility to analyze the GSR samples that had been collected the night of Heidy

Trumans death.

311. In the following days, weeks, and months, WALLACE and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE

DOE enlisted the aid of members of the Wagner family and friends of Heidy to communicate

with Conrad and get him to makes statements about Heidys death.

312. In the following days, weeks, and months, a bevy of search warrants and investigative

subpoenas were obtained which sought a variety of information, including financial and

insurance documentation relating to the Truman couple. As set forth below, each and every

warrant and investigative subpoena sought and authorized in this case was invalid since it was

not based upon the requisite showing of probable or good cause, and further, because the

affidavit in support of the warrant or investigative subpoena contained material false and

16
As set forth below, this warrant was invalid since it was not based upon the requisite showing
of probable cause, and further, because the affidavit in support contained several false and misleading
statements or omissions made knowingly or in reckless disregard for the truth.

45
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 46 of 152

misleading statements or omissions made knowingly or in reckless disregard for the truth.

313. It appears that most, if not all, of these warrant and investigative subpoena affidavits

were reviewed, approved for presentation to a court, and/or presented to a court by JOHNSON.

In reviewing and authorizing presentation to a court, JOHNSON presumably gave advice to the

Affiant, usually WALLACE.

314. Officers served multiple warrants regarding Conrad at his place of employment, on his

home, and sought to question him further. Officers continual contacts of Conrad and his work

amounted to harassment.

315. Physical evidence seized from the scene was forensically analyzed for blood stains,

DNA, serology, fingerprints, and ballistics.

316. The gun inflicting the fatal shot was determined to be the black-handled gun; this black-

handled gun was test fired.

317. Documentary records obtained from the various warrants and administrative

subpoenas were reviewed and analyzed.

318. WALLACE kept in regular communication with the Wagner Family, and specifically,

Janet Wagner, Heidys mother.

319. WALLACE kept in communication with insurance representatives, and requested to be

notified when any claims were made for Heidys death benefits.

320. On November 27, 2012, WALLACE wrote in his police report that the couple did not

appear to be suffering any financial problems prior to Heidys death.

321. With regard to the death benefits and insurance Heidy held through her employment, Air

Liquide:

46
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 47 of 152

a. WALLACE was notified and made aware that Conrad had not claimed any

benefits;

b. WALLACE was notified and made aware that on December 20, 2012, Janet

Wagner called the benefits representatives and advised:

i. that her daughter had died as the result of a domestic violence homicide;

ii. that they were waiting for an autopsy report because the autopsy said

undetermined even though everybody knew it was homicide including the lead detective;

iii. everybody knew that the husband killed her;

iv. That the husband would be charged in the next couple of months and

that attorneys would be involved shortly; and

v. that she wanted to know how to freeze the benefits.

c. WALLACE was notified and made aware that on December 26, 2012, the day

after Christmas, Conrad called explaining that he received some insurance paperwork and was

asking about it:

i. The call responder advised Conrad that he needed to call the Hartford

which was the insurance company;

ii. Conrad then proceeded to talk about how Christmas was hard this year

and that it was just a really bad year;

iii. Conrad didnt set up a claim at this time, and didnt inquire how to do so.

d. WALLACE was notified and made aware that multiple attempts were made to

contact Conrad concerning the benefits and Conrad had not responded;

e. WALLACE was notified and made aware that Conrad never made any claims

47
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 48 of 152

for the benefits available from Heidys employment.

322. With regard to the death benefits and insurance Conrad held through his employment,

ICU Medical:

a. WALLACE contacted the human resources and benefits manager, Ms. Linda

Nacarrato, on multiple occasions;

b. On one occasion in February 2013, WALLACE was informed and made aware

that Conrad had not made any claims for death benefits as a result of Heidys death;

c. WALLACE requested that Ms. Nacarrato get Conrad to submit the claim forms

for death benefits from his employment;

d. Ms. Nacarrato did so;

e. WALLACE was contacted in April 2013 and informed that Conrad had

submitted a claim form for death benefits.

323. WALLACE also spoke with Mr. John Engh, a financial planner referred to the Trumans

through Conrads work. WALLACE was told and made aware from Mr. Engh:

a. That the couple was doing well financially;

b. That Conrad had just cashed-in and sold a significant amount of company stock,

and was looking for advice as to where to invest it;

c. That Mr. Engh suggested a whole life insurance policy as a cash accumulation

vehicle;

d. That Conrad actually resisted the whole life policy and did not think it was a

good idea;

48
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 49 of 152

e. That Conrad actually told Mr. Engh that the couple did not want to sign up for

insurance at that time;

f. That Mr. Engh coaxed the couple, however, and they agreed to at least get the

medical check-up scheduled for October 6, 2012 (the week after Heidys death).

324. The OCPD, WALLACE and JOHNSON, also hired experts from Englert Forensic

Consultants, from the state of Oregon. (the Englert team).

325. The Englert team flew to Utah in the end of May 2013 for three days to further

investigate, review evidence, consult, and meet with WALLACE, JOHNSON, other law

enforcement officers from the OCPD, and other investigators.

326. On May 30, 2013, the Englert team and a number of law enforcement officers went to

Conrads residence and conducted a scene reconstruction during which re-enactment

photographs were produced.

327. In order to gain entry into Conrads residence, WALLACE sought and obtained a

search warrant.17

328. Also in executing this particular warrant, WALLACE and the others present including

JOHNSON, CROOK, and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE unreasonably and without cause or

necessity broke through Conrads front door causing damage to Conrads property. The

unreasonable execution of this warrant was based, in part, on the fact that WALLACE briefed

and falsely told executing officers that CONRAD was threatening and would pose an officer

safety risk.

17
As set forth below, this warrant was invalid since it was not based upon the requisite showing
of probable cause, and further, because the affidavit in support contained several false and misleading
material statements or omissions made knowingly or in reckless disregard for the truth.

49
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 50 of 152

329. During the scene reconstruction, CROOK led a walk-through where police officers (a

male and a female) of the same height and build as Conrad and Heidy were placed in the

positions as purportedly observed by CROOK.

330. CROOK then directed these actors to walk through what he purportedly witnessed the

evening of Heidy Trumans death as photographs were taken. (Sampling of Englert

Reconstruction Photographs attached cumulatively in Exhibit A).

331. Among others, Officers CROOK, WALLACE, RUIZ, and Pikus were present, as well as

JOHNSON and investigators Doug Squire, Ed Spann, and Scott Finch.

332. During this time in the home, Ed Spann, from the Attorney Generals investigation

bureau, and other officers also took 360-degree photographs of the residence.18

333. On May 31, 2013, after three days of investigation, the Englert team met with members

of law enforcement and the Utah County Attorneys Office and demonstrated and summarized

their findings and opinions.

334. According to police reports, WALLACE, JOHNSON, Deputy Utah County Attorney

Tim Taylor, and OCPD Captain Jackson were present.

335. Neither WALLACE nor any other person wrote a report summarizing the specifics of

this meeting and the Englert teams demonstrated findings and conclusions.

336. No recordings, notes, reports, or other documentation was preserved or disclosed

summarizing the specifics of this meeting and the Englert teams demonstrated findings and

conclusions.

18
Although these photographs were not accurate representations of the area and were wildly
misleading, they were admitted in the first trial. The Englert photographs were not.

50
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 51 of 152

337. WALLACE has since testified during trial number two that the Englert team found:

a. That the blood spatter found on Conrads shirt was consistent with the aspirated

blood Crook saw when Conrad tried CPR;

b. That the scene was too bloody and contaminated to make any definitive

conclusions;

c. That the Englert team could not form any opinion as to where Conrad was

located when Heidy was shot;

d. That the Englert team could not form any opinion as to exactly where Heidy was

located when shot.

WARRANTS AND INVESTIGATIVE SUBPOENAS

338. Throughout the investigation, WALLACE intentionally, knowingly, or with reckless

disregard for the truth, submitted countless false and misleading sworn statements to a court of

law in order to obtain warrants, investigative subpoenas, and ultimately, to support arresting and

charging Conrad Truman.

339. Although the number of warrants or subpoena affidavits were not disclosed, by

WALLACEs own count, this case consisted of 23 search warrants, 37 investigative

subpoenas, and one arrest warrant.

340. JOHNSON gave advice and approved most, if not all, of these affidavits for filing to

support warrant applications or investigative subpoenas.

341. A number of the affidavits include the following statement: This affidavit has been

reviewed by Craig Johnson of the Utah County Attorneys Office, and it has been approved for

presentation to the Court.

51
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 52 of 152

342. Each and every one of the numerous affidavits sworn to by WALLACE, approved by

JOHNSON, and submitted to a court:

a. Did not establish the requisite showing of probable cause; and/or

b. Contains false and misleading statements and/or omissions made intentionally,

knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth.

c. Consequently, each and every warrants and investigative subpoena was invalid

and the resulting search and seizures violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States

Constitution and Article I, Section 14 of the Utah Constitution.

343. By way of summarizing the general themes and repeated facts which WALLACE

mischaracterized, misstated or omitted from the affidavits, the following material

mischaracterizations and omissions pervaded the affidavits in support:

a. Misstatements, Mischaracterizations and/or Omissions Regarding the


Scene, the Size and Location of Heidy Trumans Body, and the Location or
Condition of Other Material Pieces of Evidence.

i. Several sworn statements in affidavits aver in some manner that Heidys


body was found approximately 12 feet from the bathroom, where Conrad
said she was shot; and that Heidy did not shoot herself in the head and
then walk 12 feet as she would have fallen to the ground immediately
wherever the shot was inflicted.

TRUTH: These statements are both materially false and


misleading as Heidys body was not found 12 feet from the
bathroom; Heidy fell within approximately one foot from the
hallway area from where the shot was heard; and Conrad never
stated as fact that Heidy was shot in the bathroom.

These statements were made intentionally, knowingly, or with


reckless disregard for the truth.

52
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 53 of 152

ii. Several sworn statements in affidavits aver in some manner that the
black-handled gun (the gun that killed Heidy) was lying on the kitchen
floor over 10 feet away from Heidys body when first seen by law
enforcement.

TRUTH: These statements are both materially false and


misleading as the black-handled gun was actually reported to be
seen near Heidys body; and the black-handled gun was not 10
feet away from Heidys body but at most, within three feet.

These statements were made intentionally, knowingly, or with


reckless disregard for the truth.

iii. Several sworn statements in affidavits aver in some manner that there
was no evidence to support that Heidy had been shot in the hallway or
bathroom and go on to explain that an alternative light source was used
and there was no blood spatter marks anywhere else in the home, and that
there was no blood trail leading away from or towards any other rooms in
the home.

TRUTH: These statements are both materially false and


misleading because evidence did exist to support that Heidy had
been shot in the hallway area, including the presence of the casing
in the hallway, the location of Heidy Trumans body within
approximately a foot of the hallway area, and the actual presence
of blood evidence in the hallway area.

These statements were made intentionally, knowingly, or with


reckless disregard for the truth.

iv. Several sworn statements in affidavits aver in some manner that there
was no water on the shower curtain or floors, and that the tub was not
drained but there was no debris in the water. These statements implied
that Heidy was not really in the tub or shower and that Conrad was lying.

TRUTH: These statements are materially false and misleading


and omit the facts that the area wasnt searched until several
hours later leaving time for air moisture and items to dry; that
police reports document and witnesses stated that the bathroom
felt humid; Heidys body was wet as if she had just been in the
shower; that the shower curtain was outside of the tub and that the
tub was full as if someone had been bathing; that soap and
shampoo bottle caps were in the open position; that there was
plugged in hair dryer laying on the bathroom sink; that there was

53
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 54 of 152

a dirt splotch in the water as can be seen from photographs; that


nobody tested the water or the razors nearby; and that
observations had been made that Heidys legs had been partially
shaved.

These statements and omissions were made intentionally,


knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth.

b. Misstatements, Mischaracterizations and/or Omissions Regarding Autopsy


Findings.

i. Several sworn statements in affidavits aver in some manner that based on


the findings of the autopsy, Heidy Trumans fatal gun shot wound was
fired while the handgun was pressed against the right side of her cranium.
The firearm was pressed against her head with so much pressure that
there were no powder burns on the outside of her head.

TRUTH: These statements are both materially misleading and


false as the autopsy report and other reports establish that, despite
Heidys long thick hair, apparent soot was found around the
wound margins and on the skull, although there was no muzzle
imprint pattern located.

Also, the autopsy findings evidence only a contact wound but


do not speak to the force or pressure applied to the head when
the gun was fired, or the identity of the person who applied the
force. For probable cause purposes, the fact that Heidys injury
was a contact wound to the temple is not probable cause of
homicide, but rather, consistent with suicide since suicides are
statistically far more likely to be contact wounds than homicides
are, and shots to the temple are the most common means of
gunshot suicide.

These statements and omissions were made intentionally,


knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth.

ii. Several sworn statements in affidavits aver in some manner that Heidys
autopsy revealed she died from a gunshot wound to the right side of her
head, about 5 inches above the ear, which would have made it difficult
for Heidy to reach to and hold the firearm firmly to avoid the powder
burns on the exterior of her cranium.

TRUTH: These statements are both materially misleading and


false. The Medical Examiners Report documents that the

54
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 55 of 152

entrance wound was to Heidys right temple, 7 centimeters (or


2.75 inches) above and 3 centimeters in front of her ear canal.
This is essentially at the temple, an area not difficult to reach, and
an area highly consistent with a self inflicted wound.

These statements and omissions were made intentionally,


knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth.

iii. Several sworn statements in affidavits aver in some manner that the State
Medical Examiner officially said that due to extensive brain injury,
Heidy would not have been able to walk at all after the wound was
inflicted and would have immediately fallen to the ground.

TRUTH: This statement is false and misleading as Heidy could


have traveled one-to-two steps and would have fallen within a
few feet of where shot.

These statements and omissions were made intentionally,


knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth.

c. Misstatements, Mischaracterizations and/or Omissions Regarding Conrads


General Statements and Behavior.

i. Several sworn statements in affidavits aver in some manner that Truman


behaved in an unusual manner and therefore, must have killed Heidy.

ii. Although initially properly describing Truman as hysterical in warrant


affidavits prepared the night of Heidys death, later sworn statements
characterize Truman as threatening and belligerent.

iii. Some sworn statements set forth the 911 dispatchers expert opinion
that in her years of experience, Conrad obstructed any lifesaving help
that she had been trained to provide:

TRUTH: These statements are false and misleading. An actual


review of the 911 recording confirms that Truman was hysterical
and almost incomprehensible. It is evident that Truman was
panicking over the amount of blood that he saw and exhibited
desperation that Heidy would die if help did not arrive. Truman
responded, however, to the majority of the operators questions,
many of which she repeated after Truman answered them. After
obtaining the necessary information, the dispatcher told Truman
to go outside and flag down the responders. He complied. There is

55
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 56 of 152

just nothing Truman did or said which prevented lifesaving


measures and the dispatchers statement was untrue.

WALLACE specifically asked the 911 dispatcher to author a


report, the dispatcher had been sanctioned for making false
reports, and these statements and omissions were made
intentionally, knowingly, and/or with reckless disregard for the
truth.

iv. All of the sworn statements faulting Conrads behavior omit the context
of the situation and fail to disclose that Conrad was obviously
traumatized, hysterical, had been drinking, was unable to track
conversations or make a timeline, and believed that medical personnel
were not moving quickly enough to save his wife.

These statements and omissions concerning Conrads behavior


were made intentionally, knowingly, or with reckless disregard
for the truth.

v. All of the sworn statements faulting Conrads behavior also omit the fact
that some of Conrads frustration came from officers refusing to take him
to the hospital to be with his dying wife, refusing to call or let him call
anyone to come help or support him, and refusing to let him calm or free
his dogs that were incessantly barking.

These statements and omissions concerning Conrads behavior


were made intentionally, knowingly, or with reckless disregard
for the truth.

vi. The mischaracterizations and/or omissions concerning Conrads behavior


are varied and run rampant within the sworn statements submitted under
oath to a court.

These statements and omissions concerning Conrads behavior


were made intentionally, knowingly, or with reckless disregard
for the truth.

d. Misstatements, Mischaracterizations and/or Omissions Regarding Conrads


Statements and/or Inconsistent Statements.

i. Specific to Trumans purported inconsistent statements, several sworn


statements in affidavits aver in some manner that Conrad gave multiple
stories that are blatant examples of Conrads dishonesty.

56
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 57 of 152

ii. These sworn statements contain innumerable false claims and


mischaracterizations about specific statements purportedly made by
Truman and the context within which he said them.

iii. Several sworn statements in affidavits aver in some manner that Conrad
made Inconsistent Statements.

TRUTH: These statements are both materially misleading and


false as Conrad gave a consistent rendition of the material facts.

These statements were made intentionally, knowingly, or with


reckless disregard for the truth.

iv. Several sworn statements in affidavits aver in some manner that Conrad
made these inconsistent statements as statements of fact.

TRUTH: These statements are materially misleading and false


and omit the known truth that Conrad was not making statements
of fact, but was questioning what had happened while repeatedly
exclaiming he did not know what happened and that he did not
know how to explain the events he saw.

These statements and omissions were made intentionally,


knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth.

v. Several sworn statements in affidavits aver in some manner that Conrad


made inconsistent statements regarding the location from where he saw
Heidy standing when Conrad explains he heard the pop sound.

TRUTH: These statements are materially misleading and false


and omit the fact that the area in the Truman home where these
events took place is very small, and as such, the exact same place
can be described in different ways.

These statements and omissions were made intentionally,


knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth.

vi. Several sworn statements in affidavits aver in some manner that Conrad
claimed he saw another person, or specifically a black man, run out of
the house.

TRUTH: These statements are not only materially misleading


and false, but omit the clear fact that Conrad specifically told
police numerous times that there was no one else in the home who

57
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 58 of 152

could have shot his wife, and in fact stated that theres no way
someone could have come into the home when Conrad wasnt
looking.

These statements and omissions were made intentionally,


knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth.

e. Misstatements, Mischaracterizations and/or Omissions Regarding Life


Insurance and Financial Assets.

i. Statements as to a financial motive pervaded affidavits and sworn


statements and were replete with false statements and omissions
concerning this topic.

ii. Several sworn statements in affidavits aver in some manner to a general


financial motive for murder and list a number of life insurance policies
and benefits the couple held. Some statements aver that pecuniary gain
is the primary motive in Conrads killing of Heidy.

TRUTH: These statements are false and misleading and generally


omit the facts that Conrad did not know about all of these
policies; did not make any claims for the vast majority of the
insurance proceeds and death benefits; and that the couple had
ample financial assets.

These statements and omissions were made intentionally,


knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth.

iii. The Arrest Warrant Affidavit and the probable cause statement in the
Information allege that there was no reason for the Trumans to be
purchasing more life insurance, as they were in the midst of doing when
Heidy died.

TRUTH: These statements are materially false because the


Trumans were not seeking to purchase more life insurance, but
were seeking an investment vehicle to put the proceeds from
Conrads recent sale of stock; additionally, Conrad did not want
to purchase life insurance and actively resisted the urging of the
financial planner.

These statements were made intentionally, knowingly, or with


reckless disregard for the truth.

58
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 59 of 152

iv. Some sworn statements aver that Mr. John Engh, a financial planner and
the person who had met with the Trumans about insurance, told the
police that Conrad wanted more than $300,000 in life insurance on
Heidy because Heidy had none, and he wanted her insured in case of an
accident.

TRUTH: These statements are materially false, as attested to by


John Engh himself. Conrad made no such statements; nor did Mr.
Engh. Mr. Engh wholly acknowledges that Engh was the one
who suggested the Whole Life Policy and Conrad was the one
who was hesitant; Mr. Engh confirms that Conrad was not
seeking to "increase coverage on his wife" but was seeking
investment advice, not another insurance policy; the actual
amounts Engh suggested were $350,000.00 for Conrad and
$200,000.00 for Heidy; and Conrad never told Engh that Heidy
had no life insurance or that he needed to insure her in case of
an accident.

These statements were made intentionally, knowingly, or with


reckless disregard for the truth.

v. Some sworn statements aver that Wallace located several voice mails on
Conrad Trumans cell phone which were from an insurance agent the
week of Heidy's death, confirming the purchase of new life insurance.

TRUTH: These statements were materially false as attested to by


John Engh himself. The several voice mails from the insurance
agent confirming the purchase of new life insurance was John
Engh, and he was not confirming any such purchase, but was
trying to convince hesitant Conrad to move forward.

These statements and omissions were made intentionally,


knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth.

f. Misstatements, Mischaracterizations and/or Omissions Regarding Blood


Evidence.

i. Several sworn statements in affidavits, including the Arrest Warrant


affidavit, aver in some manner and try to evoke a horror scene and
describe: There was a large amount of blood on Conrads person, and
blood was found on the stairs, front entry way to the home, several walls
and in the living room on the couches, bedroom wall and bathroom wall.

TRUTH: These statements are materially misleading and omit

59
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 60 of 152

actual reasons for the substantial amount of blood present


consistent with Conrads innocence and role as an innocent
bystander. This omitted information includes the known facts
that: 1) Conrad was bloody from trying to resuscitate his wife
who was bleeding profusely; 2) Conrad told police he went to the
bathroom to look for a towel (thus explaining the blood transfer
on the bathroom wall); 3) Conrad told police he went to the
bedroom to get a phone (thus explaining blood transfer on the
bedroom door and on the phone charger in that area); 4) Conrad
had been ordered by the dispatcher to go outside to meet the
police, had gone back into the bloody kitchen to be with Heidy,
had been ordered by the police to put one of his bloody dogs in
the bedroom, had been ordered back to the living room, was told
to sit down on the couch, and had been taken twice to the
downstairs bathroom to restrain another dog and to wash his
hands (thus explaining bloody footprints on the stairs, and blood
transfers in those areas); 5) The knees of Conrads pants were
soaked with blood because he had knelt in the blood pool in an
effort to render aid to his wife; 6) As first responders removed
Heidy from the scene, her blood continued to drip in the kitchen
area, into the dog bowls, down the stairs, and outside; 7) When
Conrad was made to stay in the living room area, covered in
blood and had blood in his mouth from his efforts to save Heidy,
he kept spitting into a trash can in the corner and ultimately wiped
his face on a helmet bag hanging from a hook in the entry way.
Overall, the truth was that Conrad, dogs, police officers, and
medical personnel all tracked blood throughout the house.

These statements and omissions were made intentionally,


knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth.

ii. Several sworn statements in affidavits aver in some manner that there
was no evidence to support that Heidy had been shot in the hallway or
bathroom; explain that an alternative light source was used and there
was no blood spatter anywhere else in the home, and that there was no
blood trail leading away from or towards any other rooms in the home.

TRUTH: These statement are both materially false and


misleading because evidence did exists to support that Heidy had
been shot in the hallway area, and there was also blood evidence
that existed in the hallway area.

These statements and omissions were made intentionally,


knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth.

60
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 61 of 152

g. Misstatements, Mischaracterizations and/or Omissions Regarding the


Firearms.

i. Several sworn statements in affidavits aver in some manner that the


black-handled gun (the gun that killed Heidy) was lying on the kitchen
floor over 10 feet away from Heidys body when first seen by law
enforcement.

TRUTH: These statements are both materially false and


misleading as the black-handled gun was reported to be seen
near or next to Heidys body prior to the time Crook kicked it
under the kitchen table.

These statements were made intentionally, knowingly, or with


reckless disregard for the truth.

ii. The Arrest Warrant Affidavit specifically avers that the holstered silver-
handled gun located on the kitchen table was later found to have blood
and tissue in the crease near the trigger.

TRUTH: This statement is materially false and appears to be


based upon the unverified and untested suggestion of the Englert
team. The Utah State Crime lab re-checked this gun for human
tissue and blood and concluded that any suspected substance was
actually probably glue from the manufacturer.

These statements and omissions were made intentionally,


knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth.

iii. The Arrest Warrant Affidavit specifically avers that the black-handled
gun had an extended magazine to provide for a larger hand, inferring that
the death weapon was Conrads and he was lying about ownership.

TRUTH: This statement is materially false and misleading and


attempted to identify Conrad as the owner and user of the black
handled gun; the statement also omitted the material facts that
Conrad had explained that Heidys gun was the same make and
model as his mothers (which was the same black-handled gun);
that both Heidys and Conrads guns were the same make and
model; that both Heidys and Conrads guns had extended clips
that were interchangeable; and that use of an extension clip is
irrelevant to hand-size.

61
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 62 of 152

These statements and omissions were made intentionally,


knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth.

iv. Several sworn statements in affidavits aver in some manner that Conrad
denied or was evasive about the existence of two guns in the kitchen,
attempting to show a consciousness of guilt.

TRUTH: These statements are materially false and misleading,


and omit the material fact that Officer Crook surreptitiously slid
the black-handled gun under the table and that Crook himself
acknowledged his belief that Conrad was unaware of it.

Additionally, Conrad was anything but evasive and talked


freely of both the holstered gun he took off the printer table and
tossed on the chair; talked of Heidys gun, which he kept asking
to show police where he believed it to be, in the bedroom on the
night stand next to Heidys side of the bed; and explained to
police of the whereabouts of the numerous firearms in the house
and in the vehicles.

These statements and omissions were made intentionally,


knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth.

h. Misstatements, Mischaracterizations and/or Omissions Regarding 94-


second Phone Call.

i. Several sworn statements in affidavits aver in some manner that Conrad


had a 94-second phone conversation with Heidy eleven minutes before
her death, and that Conrad was lying and being evasive in not
remembering it.

TRUTH: These statement are materially false and misleading and


omit the material facts that the phone records establish this was
not a completed call; that Heidy did not answer the call, but
instead rejected it and that it went to voicemail; and that Heidy
and Conrad did not have a phone conversation in the moments
before the fatal shot.

Cell phone records also establish that the voicemail was retrieved
by Heidys phone approximately three minutes before the 911 call
was placed. Heidys cell phone was located in the master
bedroom, on Heidys side of the bed, within arms reach of the
night stand where her black-handled gun was kept.

62
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 63 of 152

Therefore, Conrads responses to questions about a completed call


or conversations with Heidy were not ones of evasiveness, but
responses of surprise and confusion since he knew that he did not
speak with Heidy on the phone.

These statements and omissions were made intentionally,


knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth.

i. Misstatements, Mischaracterizations and/or Omissions Regarding Conrads


Refusal to Cooperate.

i. Several sworn statements in affidavits aver in some manner that Conrad


refused to cooperate with officers, especially Detective Wallace. Such
statements include averments that Conrad would not return any phone
calls, and was not willing to speak with officers.

TRUTH: These statement are materially false and misleading and


omit the fact that Conrad was cooperative with officers; he
submitted to questioning with Detective Wallace and other
officers on repeated occasions; and the affidavits also omitted that
Conrad agreed to meet with Wallace on the 19th of October, but
that it was Wallace who cancelled the meeting.

These statements and omissions were made intentionally,


knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth.

ii. Several affidavits also mischaracterized the interviews Conrad did give.
For example, with regard to the interview Wallace and another officer
had with Truman at his place of employment, sworn statements allege
that Conrad immediately became defensive and would talk with
[Wallace] when the time was right. Some said that when asked when the
time would be right, he said no time would be right.

TRUTH: These statement are materially false and misleading.


Conrad spoke to the two detectives courteously for a lengthy
period of time before Conrad expressed he would rather talk away
from work; the officers continued pressing for details of the
evening, as Conrad kept asking them to call him and talk to him
outside of work; eventually, Conrad candidly told Wallace that he
did not trust them, particularly after Officer Crook had called him
a liar and a murderer; and Conrad even agreed to go to Wallaces
office and meet the very next day.

63
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 64 of 152

These statements and omissions were made intentionally,


knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth.

344. False statements, mischaracterizations, and omissions pervade each and every affidavit

in this case, and stem beyond those categories summarized above.

345. Each and every affidavit, when looked at individually, contains misstatement,

mischaracterizations, and/or omissions which vitiate any plausible showing of probable cause.

MISHANDLING, MANUFACTURING, AND FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE

346. Throughout the investigation, WALLACE, CROOK, LOPEZ, OFFICER(S) JOHN/

JANE DOE, and at times JOHNSON and ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, mishandled

evidence, failed to preserve material evidence, at times concealed or altered evidence, and at

times manufactured or fabricated evidence and testimony, which was then used to support the

arrest, charging, incarceration, and prosecution of Conrad Truman for murder and obstruction

of justice.

347. Upon information and belief, CITY and the OCPD failed to properly train officers,

including but not limited to all DEFENDANT OFFICERS and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE

DOES 1-10, in the proper handling of evidence, the proper reporting of police activity, proper

interview and interrogations techniques, the exercise of diligence and truthfulness in

investigation, the disclosure of investigation findings to the prosecution and to the defense in

criminal proceedings, and in ensuring the presentation of truthful, accurate and complete

testimony and evidence under oath.

348. Instead, and upon information and belief, CITY and the OCPD have created an

institutional culture supporting and encouraging constitutional violations such as those alleged

64
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 65 of 152

herein and, in so doing, directly and materially contributed to, and proximately caused, the

violations described herein.

349. With regard to the GSR evidence, the following mishandling and/or fabrication of

evidence occurred during the investigative stages of this case:

a. Officers directed Truman to wash his hands the evening of Heidys death prior to

swabbing them for gunshot residue. Specifically:

i. Before any person took GSR samples from Conrads hands, LOPEZ, told

Truman: Conrad, lets go wash your hands, and walked him to the bathroom where they

washed his hands together;

ii. WALLACE admits that LOPEZ allowed Conrad to wash his hands;

iii. CROOK admits to hearing another officer say to Conrad: hey, lets get

your hands washed;

iv. LOPEZ washed, or allowed Conrad to wash his hands even though his

sergeant, Sgt. FERRE expressly stated not to;

v. In washing Trumans hands, LOPEZ destroyed and/or failed to preserve

exculpatory evidence Conrads preserved hands and an opportunity to demonstrate that his

hands were free of GSR prior to washing;

vi. In being aware and failing to stop Conrads hand washing, LOPEZ,

CROOK, FERRE and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, allowed the destruction of and/or failed

to preserve exculpatory evidence Conrads preserved hands and an opportunity to demonstrate

that his hands were free of GSR prior to washing;

vii. This single act by law enforcement in failing to preserve Conrads hands

65
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 66 of 152

prior to swabbing them for GSR, completely destroyed Conrads ability to show, without

question or speculation, that he did not discharge the firearm that killed his wife.

b. LOPEZ and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE then fabricated evidence and

testimony and tried to blame Conrad for manipulating the scene. Specifically,

i. While Conrad was being detained at the home, he tried to follow orders

so that officers would take him to the hospital to see Heidy;

ii. Trying to convince the officers he had nothing to do with Heidys

condition, he expressed to officers to please test his hands and his gun for GSR, because he

hadnt shot a gun. Conrads statements can be heard in the audio recordings;

iii. Knowing that they failed to preserve evidence by washing Conrads

hands, LOPEZ, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, and with the aid of JOHNSON and

WALLACE, fabricated testimony that Conrad calculatingly asked to wash his hands, and then

only after doing so, then requested that his hands be tested for gunshot residue knowing his

hands were clean;

iv. This fabricated testimony and evidence does not comport with the police

reports, the recordings, and other evidence in the case.

c. Additional GSR samples were also lost or destroyed. More specifically:

i. GSR samples were taken from Heidys bagged hands during the autopsy;

GSR samples were taken from Conrads hands by evidence technician Pikus at some point at

the hospital;

ii. WALLACE testified under oath that GSR samples were also taken from

the pantry door, the bathroom door, and the master bedroom door;

66
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 67 of 152

iii. WALLACE also remembered GSR samples being taken from Conrads

shirt, and maybe his pants;

iv. WALLACE testified under oath that none of the GSR samples that had

been taken were analyzed prior to trial number one;

v. The evidence custodian, Patricia Pikus, only retained the GSR samples

taken from the hands of Conrad and Heidy Truman;

vi. The missing GSR samples from the doors could have shown GSR

particles on the doorways in the back area of the home consistent with the firearm discharge in

that location as Conrad explained all along, thus establishing that Conrad was not a liar and did

not tell inconsistent stories as depicted by law enforcement and the prosecutors.

d. Rather than acknowledge the mishandling and/or loss of material GSR evidence

here, WALLACE, JOHNSON, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE and ATTORNEY(S)

JOHN/JANE DOE then fabricated evidence and testimony as to why the GSR samples were not

sent for testing. More specifically,

i. WALLACE, JOHNSON, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE and

ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE concocted the false evidence and justification that the GSR

samples were not sent for analysis because GSR analysis is not a very viable forensic tool, GSR

analysis cant tell you much, and nobody tests anymore and would not accept the samples;

ii. Contrary to the general thrust of the false justification, GSR analysis

remains a viable forensics tool; the protocol at the time was to take GSR samples on shooting

cases; although the Utah State Crime lab no longer conducts some GSR analysis, out of State

laboratories continue to analyze GSR samples;

67
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 68 of 152

iii. Indeed, in a prosecution that occurred at the same time as Conrads case,

attorneys from the Utah County attorneys Office, through Doug Squire, introduced GSR

analysis during the trial of that case;

iv. Conrad and his counsel were apprized on the day before trial number one

that the GSR samples had never been sent for analysis, and Conrad and his counsel were not

apprized prior to trial number one as to the fabricated justification why;

v. Only at trial number one was the fabricated justifications sprung on

Conrad without notice or an opportunity to defend.

350. With regard to financial motive, the following mishandling and/or fabrication of

evidence occurred during the investigative stages of this case:

a. During the investigation, WALLACE, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, and

ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE interviewed witnesses and reviewed financial records and

other documents which established that the Trumans were not struggling financially but, in

fact, had tens of thousands of dollars in a number of joint and individual savings, checking, and

retirement accounts. Despite this, WALLACE, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, and

ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE fabricated testimony and evidence suggesting that the

Trumans were struggling financially and did not have enough money to pay their bills;

b. On 11/27/12, at 12:22:32-38 MST, WALLACE authored a police report

specifically stating that the Trumans did not appear to be suffering any financial problems

prior to Heidys death. At some point in the weeks or months thereafter, WALLACE illegally

altered that very same report dated 11/27/12, with the very same time of 12:22:32-38 MST, and

deleted any reference to the lack of financial problems. WALLACE altered this police report

68
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 69 of 152

and specifically deleted the statement as to a lack of financial motive, changing the language to

reflect further review was upcoming;19

c. During the investigation, WALLACE, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, and

ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE interviewed witnesses and reviewed financial records and

other documents which established that Conrad was not seeking to buy more life insurance, and

in fact, Conrad was resisting any such purchase;

d. Despite the truth, WALLACE, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, and with the

knowledge, approval and/or advice of JOHNSON and ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE,

fabricated testimony and evidence suggesting:

i. that Mr. John Engh, a financial planner, told the police that Conrad

sought more than $300,000 in life insurance on Heidy because Heidy had none, and that Conrad

wanted Heidy insured in case of an accident. This evidence is wholly false and fabricated as

attested to by Mr. John Engh;

ii. that there was no reason for the Trumans to be purchasing more life

insurance, as they were in the midst of doing when Heidy died. This evidence is wholly false

and fabricated as attested to by Mr. John Engh;

19
WALLACES action in altering his police report may constitute a multitude of state offenses.
See, e.g., Utah Code Ann. 76-8-511 (A person is guilty of a class B misdemeanor if under
circumstances not amounting to an offense subject to a greater penalty . . .the person:(1) knowingly
makes a false entry in or false alteration of anything belonging to, received, or kept by the government for
information or record, or required by law to be kept for information of the government... [or] intentionally
destroys, conceals, or otherwise impairs the verity or availability of the information or records); Utah
Code Ann. 76-8-201 (A public servant is guilty of a class B misdemeanor if, with an intent to benefit
himself or another or to harm another, he knowingly commits an unauthorized act which purports to be an
act of his office, or knowingly refrains from performing a duty imposed on him by law or clearly inherent
in the nature of his office); Utah Code Ann. 76-8-203 (A person is guilty of unofficial misconduct if
the person exercises . . . any of the functions of a public office when the person: . . . knowingly withholds
or retains from his successor in office or other person entitled to . . . any records, papers, documents, or
other writings appertaining or belonging to his office or mutilates or destroys or takes away the same).

69
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 70 of 152

iii. that several voice mails were located on Conrads cell phone which were

from an insurance agent the week of Heidy's death, confirming the purchase of new life

insurance on Conrad and Heidy Truman. This evidence is wholly false and fabricated as

attested to by Mr. John Engh.

e. Despite the known lack of financial motive, WALLACE and OFFICER(S)

JOHN/JANE DOE, and with the knowledge, approval and/or advice of JOHNSON and

ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, advanced the fabricated financial motive under oath in

affidavits as the reason why Conrad killed Heidy;

f. Despite the known lack of financial motive, WALLACE, RUIZ, and

JOHNSON, advanced the fabricated financial motive to Dr. Leis as the reason why Conrad

killed Heidy;

g. Despite the known lack of financial motive, WALLACE, and with the

knowledge, approval and/or advice of JOHNSON and ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE,

advanced the fabricated financial motive as a fundamental basis for Conrads arrest, charging,

and prosecution as the reason why Conrad killed Heidy;

h. Despite the known lack of financial motive, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE

advanced the fabricated financial motive to the media as the reason why Conrad killed Heidy.

i. Despite the known lack of financial motive, the fabricated financial motive was

presented to the trial court during the first trial proceedings;

j. Despite the known lack of financial motive, the fabricated financial motive was

presented to the jury during the first trial proceedings, and served as a basis for the jurys

conviction of Conrad in trial number one;

70
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 71 of 152

k. Despite the known lack of financial motive, the fabricated financial motive was

presented to the court during Conrads sentencing;

l. Despite the known lack of financial motive, the fabricated financial motive was

presented to public and the media on the Utah County Attorneys website as the reason why

Conrad killed Heidy;

m. Overall, the Trumans true and accurate financial picture was known to

WALLACE, JOHNSON, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE and ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE

DOE prior to the meeting with Dr. Leis; prior to the time Truman was charged and arrested for

murder based upon a financial motive; and prior to the time Conrad was arrested, charged,

incarcerated, and convicted based upon the fabricated financial motive.

351. With regard to distance Heidy traveled after she was shot, the following

mishandling and/or fabrication of evidence occurred during the investigative stages of this case:

a. Conrad consistently explained that when he was in the kitchen, he heard a door

open; after he heard the door open, he heard a pop sound; he then saw Heidy in the hallway

entrance area by the table with the printer, and it is from this area where she went to the ground;

b. Using dimensions and locations known to law enforcement, Heidys body, in

truth, was positioned less than one foot from the hallway entrance, exactly as Conrad

consistently explained;

c. Using dimensions and locations known to law enforcement, and in placing

Heidys body position accurately, her feet were close to the hallway entrance consistent to

where she would have fallen from a self-inflicted shot in that reported area;

d. CROOK and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE personally observed Heidys

71
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 72 of 152

location in the kitchen the evening of the incident, and knew and was fully aware that Heidy

was located very close to the hallway entrance just as Conrad explained and consistent to where

she would have fallen from a self-inflicted shot in that reported area;

e. In the investigative stage of the case, CROOK, WALLACE, JOHNSON and

OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE (to potentially include Pikus, Finch, and Squire) were present

at the Truman in the hours after the incident, aided in processing the scene, and knew and were

fully aware of the very smallness of the area;

f. In the investigative stage of the case, WALLACE, RUIZ, OFFICER(S) JOHN/

JANE DOE and ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE were put on notice of Heidy Trumans

correct distance from the hallway area through the hand sketched diagram and explanation

given by Jason Keller, Heidy Trumans brother in law, after he worked with RUIZ and agreed

to surreptitiously record Conrad on October 4, 2012;

g. In the investigative stage of the case, CROOK, WALLACE, RUIZ, JOHNSON

and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE (to potentially include Pikus, Finch, Squire and Spann)

were present in the Truman home on May 30, 2013, as CROOK directed a scene reconstruction

walk-through. Based upon their very presence and observation, they all knew and were fully

aware that Heidy was located close to the hallway entrance just as Conrad explained and

consistent to where she would have fallen from a self-inflicted shot in that reported area;

h. In the investigative stage of the case, CROOK, WALLACE, JOHNSON,

OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE and ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE reviewed the series of

photographs that were taken from the May 30, 2013 scene reconstruction and walk through.

These photographs definitively establish that Heidy was located very close to the hallway

72
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 73 of 152

entrance just as Conrad explained and consistent to where she would have fallen from a self-

inflicted shot in that reported area;

i. In the investigative stage of the case WALLACE, JOHNSON, ATTORNEY(S)

JOHN/JANE DOE (to potentially include Tim Taylor) and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE (to

potentially include Captain Jackson), were present during a meeting wherein the Englert Team

summarized its findings and concluded that they could not determine how or where Heidy

Truman was shot, where Heidy Truman was located when she was shot, and where Conrad

Truman was located when Heidy was shot;

j. Despite knowledge and awareness of the true and accurate location and size of

Heidy Trumans body, WALLACE, CROOK, JOHNSON, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE,

and ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE fabricated, aided, advised, and/or directed the

fabrication of evidence, testimony, diagrams and/or other depictions in order to corroborate a

false distance traveled in order to:

i. falsely suggest that the fatal gunshot wound could not have occurred in

the area as Conrad explained, thus calling him a liar and discounting his credibility; and

ii. to advance the wholly false argument that Heidys fatal wound could not

have been self-inflicted because Heidy could not have traveled 12-feet away after sustaining

such an injury.

k. Despite knowledge of the true and accurate location and size of Heidy Trumans

body, WALLACE and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE (to potentially include CROOK in

supplying false information), advanced the fabricated distance traveled evidence in affidavits

for warrants and investigative subpoenas to establish that Heidy could not have shot herself and

73
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 74 of 152

that Conrad was untruthful. JOHNSON reviewed a majority, if not all, of these affidavits,

warrant applications, and investigative subpoena applications containing the false evidence and

statements, and gave advice and authorized them for presentment to a court of law as evidenced

by the statement in a majority of the supporting affidavits: This affidavit has been reviewed by

Craig Johnson of the Utah County Attorneys Office, and it has been approved for presentation

to the Court;

l. Despite knowledge of the true and accurate location and size of Heidy Trumans

body, WALLACE, RUIZ, JOHNSON and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE advanced the

fabricated distance traveled evidence to Dr. Leis to establish that Heidy could not have shot

herself and that Conrad was untruthful. Defendants did so in order to secure the Deputy

Medical Examiners opinion that Heidy Trumans manner of death was homicide;

m. Despite knowledge of the true and accurate location and size of Heidy Trumans

body, WALLACE, JOHNSON, ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE and OFFICER(S)

JOHN/JANE DOE advanced the fabricated distance traveled evidence as the foundational

basis for Conrads arrest and prosecution to establish that Heidy could not have shot herself and

that Conrad was untruthful;

n. Despite knowledge of the true and accurate location and size of Heidy Trumans

body, WALLACE, CROOK, JOHNSON and ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE advanced the

fabricated distance traveled evidence as the foundational basis to establish probable cause at

the state preliminary hearing and was used by the state court to support bind-over;

o. Despite knowledge of the true and accurate location and size of Heidy Trumans

body, the fabricated distance traveled evidence was presented to the court and the jury during

74
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 75 of 152

the first trial proceedings, and served as one of the foundational bases for the jurys finding of

guilt in trial number one;

p. Overall, the true and accurate location and size of Heidy Trumans body was

known to WALLACE, JOHNSON, CROOK, RUIZ, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE and

ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE prior to the meeting with Dr. Leis, and prior to the time

Conrad was arrested, charged, incarcerated, and convicted based upon the fabricated distance

traveled evidence.

FALSE INFORMATION PRESENTED TO


DEPUTY UTAH MEDICAL EXAMINER, DR. EDWARD LEIS

352. Dr. Leis issued the original Certificate of Death on December 4, 2012.

353. The original death certificate listed Heidys immediate cause of death as a gunshot

wound of the head and the manner of death as could not be determined.

354. On July 17, 2013, and still in the investigative stage of the case, WALLACE, RUIZ,

and Attorney JOHNSON met with Dr. Leis.

355. WALLACE prepared and presented to Dr. Leis a Power Point presentation which

contained approximately 96 slides.

356. Upon information and belief, WALLACE, RUIZ and JOHNSON all made

representations to Dr. Leis and answered questions.

357. Both the meeting and the wholly misleading Power Point was clearly designed to

convince Dr. Leis to change his manner of death determination to homicide.

358. The Power Point represented purported facts to Dr. Leis suggesting that Heidys

death was a homicide. The entire Power Point, however, was misleading and contained

multiple false statements, misrepresentations and material omissions.

75
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 76 of 152

359. Among other fabrications, the Power Point conveyed as fact that:

a. there was a financial motive for Conrad to have killed Heidy since the two

were struggling financially; in fact, Dr. Leis was specifically told that the couples financial

problems provided a MOTIVE for Truman to kill Heidy;20

b. even though Conrad expressed that they had money, the Trumans checking

account regularly fell into the negative, and the night Heidy died, there was not enough money

in the checking account to cover the bills due the first of October;21

c. there existed more than $850,000 in life insurance that Conrad sought to gain

from Heidys death;

d. Conrad attempted to over-insure Heidy with additional life insurance in the

works; and

e. Heidy could not have traveled 12 feet from the bathroom to where she was found

due to the type of catastrophic injury she sustained.

360. Dr. Leis was also presented with a diagram of the scene with a scale attached.

a. The false and misleading diagram contained in the Power Point is attached

hereto as Exhibit B.

b. The Power Point diagram was inaccurate, misleading, and knowingly false;

c. Contrary to the known truth:

i. The diagram presented to Dr. Leis contains a body silhouette which

depicts Heidys body located on the far east side of the kitchen, with her head very close to the

20
Power Point, Slide 87 (triple emphasis on word motive in original slide).
21
Power Point, Slide 87.

76
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 77 of 152

stairs, and her feet located several feet away from the hallway opening;

ii. Using dimensions and locations known to law enforcement, the truth is

that Heidys feet were less than one foot from the hallway opening, and within inches of the

kitchen table and chairs;

d. Dr. Leis stated in a signed declaration that: In viewing the home and conducting

independent measurements and review, I found that the measurements and diagrams shown to

me by law enforcement and the state prosecutors were inaccurate and misrepresented/ distorted

the scene. (Declaration of Dr. Edward Leis at 67, attached hereto as Exhibit C).

361. WALLACE, RUIZ, and JOHNSON had been in the home, knew the truth, and

knowingly presented or allowed to be presented false, misleading and fabricated information to

Dr. Leis anyway.

362. WALLACE and RUIZ were put on notice of Heidy Trumans correct distance from the

hallway area through the hand sketched diagram and explanation given by Jason Keller, Heidy

Trumans brother in law, on October 4, 2012. Despite the truth, WALLACE and RUIZ

knowingly presented or allowed to be presented false, misleading and fabricated information to

Dr. Leis anyway.

363. WALLACE, RUIZ, and JOHNSON all attended the scene reconstruction walk through,

knew the truth, and knowingly presented or allowed to be presented false, misleading and

fabricated information to Dr. Leis anyway.

364. WALLACE, RUIZ, and JOHNSON had reviewed the photographs produced as a

result of the scene reconstruction walk through, knew the truth, and knowingly presented or

allowed to be presented false, misleading and fabricated information to Dr. Leis anyway.

77
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 78 of 152

365. On July 22, 2013, Dr. Leis amended the death certificate to indicate that Heidy was

shot by another person and changed the manner of death to Homicide.

366. The fabricated diagram and other fabricated evidence as to the size, location, and

distance Heidy purportedly traveled served as a fundamental basis for Dr. Leis change in his

manner of death determination to homicide.

CONRAD TRUMAN ARRESTED, CHARGED, AND INCARCERATED

Arrest and Charging

367. On July19, 2013, WALLACE met with JOHNSON and submitted an arrest warrant to

the Honorable Judge Samuel McVey. WALLACE signed the affidavit in support of the arrest

warrant. (Arrest Warrant and Affidavit in Support, attached cumulatively as Exhibit D).

368. Judge Mcvey signed the arrest warrant and set the bail amount at $1,000,000.00 cash

only.22

369. Conrad was arrested and booked shortly after the warrant was signed at 10:24 a.m. on

this same day.

370. Also on July19, 2013, Conrad Truman was charged by criminal Information with one

count of Domestic Violence Homicide, a first degree felony in violation of Utah Code 76-5-

203, and one count of Obstruction of Justice, a second degree felony in violation of Utah Code

76-8-306. WALLACE signed under oath the probable cause statement supporting the

Information. (Information and Probable Cause Statement attached as Exhibit E). JOHNSON

signed under oath, presumably drafted, and authorized and presented for filing the criminal

Information.

22
The subsequent request to reduce bail was denied, and Conrad remained incarcerated until his
eventual acquittal upon retrial in February 2017.

78
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 79 of 152

371. The arrest, charging, incarceration, and prosecution of Conrad Truman was based on the

fabricated evidence, false theories and material misrepresentations, including among others

that:

a. Heidys autopsy revealed she died from a gunshot wound to the right side of her

head, about 5 inches above the ear. The handgun was fired while being pressed against the

right side of her cranium with so much pressure that there were no powder burns on the outside

of her head;

b. Conrad executed his wife in front of the pantry door area of the kitchen over

12 feet away from the hallway area where Conrad reported last seeing her;

c. The gun that shot Heidy was found lying on the floor over ten feet away from

her body;

d. Because after the shot Heidy could not have physically traveled over 12 feet

away from the hallway area where Conrad reported last seeing her, Conrad was lying about

what happened;

e. Because there was an absence of any evidence in the hallway area, the shot was

not and could not have been discharged anywhere else in the home but by the pantry door;

f. Conrad actually owned the black-handled gun, used it to kill his wife, and lied

about the guns ownership;

g. Conrads statements regarding his wifes location and how she was shot were

lies and indicative of obstruction of justice and a guilty mind;

h. Conrad repeatedly lied, examples being that: he claimed that he saw a black

man run out of the house; lied about the ownership of the gun; and his evasiveness

79
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 80 of 152

surrounding a 94-second phone conversation he had with his wife approximately 10 minutes

before the 911 call;

i. As the investigation continued, Conrad would not return any phone calls, and

was not willing to speak with officers;

j. The couple was struggling financially, Conrad had over-insured his wife, and

therefore, this pecuniary gain is the primary motive in Conrads killing of Heidy.

First Criminal Proceedings

372. During the proceedings, Conrad remained in custody on one-million-cash-only bail.

373. Throughout the preliminary hearing, other preliminary proceedings, and at Trumans

first trial, the State prosecutors consistently advanced the above stated false theories and

fabricated evidence and testimony supporting them.

374. Conrad was represented at trial number one by Mr. Ronald Yengich.

375. Deputy Utah County Prosecutors Craig JOHNSON and Ryan Peters (State

Prosecutors) represented the State of Utah.

376. An almost four-week trial began two years after Heidys death, on September 30, 2014,

whereupon the jury selection process began.

377. During the first trial proceedings, the State Prosecutors presented Dr. Leis as an expert

witness and knowingly presented his tainted opinion that this death was a homicide.

a. When asked whether he knew who was holding the gun to Heidys head when

the fatal shot was fired, Dr. Leis concluded on cross examination, [b]y my determination its

somebody other than Heidy;

b. JOHNSON also touted Dr. Leis conclusion of homicide as well-founded,

80
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 81 of 152

based upon thousands of autopsies and made only after due consideration and hearing all of

the evidence.

378. During the first trial proceedings, the State Prosecutors knowingly presented false,

misleading and/or fabricated evidence surrounding the GSR as follows:

a. The GSR samples that had been taken were not sent for analysis, the reason

being the GSR analysis is not a very viable forensic tool;

b. State expert testimony was presented that GSR analysis cant tell much;

c. State expert testimony was presented that there was no GSR detected in the

Truman home;

d. State expert testimony was presented that Dr. Leis did not visually see GSR on

Heidy Trumans hands;

e. When asked whether he knew who was holding the gun to Heidys head when

the fatal shot was fired, Dr. Leis concluded on cross-examination, [b]y my determination its

somebody other than Heidy;

f. In closing argument, JOHNSON falsely told the jury that a specified forensic lab

and other labs wouldnt take the GSR samples for testing; the inference and argument to the

jury being that nobody would test the GSR because GSR analysis is so unreliable;

g. In closing argument, JOHNSON justified the failure to test the GSR samples by

arguing that GSR was not relevant; was just a red-herring; that all the experts were consistent

in the opinion that any GSR result would not be helpful; and inferred to the jury that GSR

testing isnt reliable since nobody does the testing.

379. During the first trial proceedings, the State Prosecutors knowingly presented false,

81
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 82 of 152

misleading and/or fabricated evidence of distance traveled, the dimensions of the

residence, and the size and location of Heidys body as follows:

a. JOHNSON admitted Trial Exhibits 9/9A/9B through CROOK and WALLACE

who represented these exhibits to be true, accurate, and to-scale diagrams of the scene and the

size and location of Heidy Trumans body;

b. Based upon these diagrams, witnesses testified that Heidys body traveled 10-12

feet from the area where Conrad heard the pop and from where he saw Heidy fall;

c. Dr. Leis testified that if the injury was self-inflicted, Heidy would not have been

able to travel very far; might have been able to take 1-2 steps; and might have made it 2-3

feet before collapsing. Thus, Heidys body being located 10-12 feet away is inconsistent with

the physical evidence of where Heidys body was located;

d. Likewise, Trumans description of events and seeing Heidy in the hallway/

doorway area is inconsistent with the physical evidence of where Heidys body was located 10-

12 feet away.

380. Relatedly, during the first trial proceedings, the State Prosecutors knowingly

presented false, misleading and/or fabricated evidence concerning the location of the

black-handled gun as follows:

a. CROOK falsely testified that the black-handled gun was 8-10 feet away from

Heidys body when he first saw it by Trumans feet, based on the State diagrams;

b. Dr. Leis testified that had this been a self-inflicted wound, the gun would likely

have been found close to the body, likely within 2-3 feet of body if self-discharged.

82
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 83 of 152

381. During the first trial proceedings, the State Prosecutors knowingly presented false,

misleading and/or fabricated evidence concerning financial motive as follows:

a. The prosecutors, particularly Ryan Peters, presented evidence of a financial

motive;

b. The existence of some negative balances in one of the couples several accounts

was used as proof that the couple was struggling financially;

c. The State prosecutors also presented the idea that because the Trumans were

trying to refinance their home, this somehow amounted to a financial motive;

d. The State prosecutors called witnesses from the benefits department of Heidy

and Conrads employment, and evidence was adduced as to the couples salaries; that Conrad

and Heidy each held insurance and other benefits through their employment; and that Conrad

eventually filled out the claim forms for accidental death benefits through his work, describing

Heidys death as an accident in the home having to do with a gunshot;

e. JOHNSON elicited from WALLACE that Heidy held $734,130 of insurance for

which Truman was the beneficiary and would gain by her death; the State laid no foundation for

this evidence as to where this amount came from or whether it was accurate;

f. In closing rebuttal, JOHNSON mocked the defense who had argued to the jury

there was no financial motive here. JOHNSON falsely rebutted that the prosecution had never

argued the life insurance issue, but instead, brought up life insurance to show the police did a

thorough investigation and only wanted to give the jury a full picture of the case;

83
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 84 of 152

g. In closing rebuttal, JOHNSON also argued: she had $758,897 in life

insurance. Nothing to gain from a dead wife? Im not so sure that thats supported by the

evidence.

382. During the first trial proceedings, the State Prosecutors knowingly presented false,

misleading and/or fabricated evidence concerning the 94 second phone call as follows:

a. WALLACE falsely testified that Conrad placed a completed call to Heidy at

10:47 p.m. and testified that Conrads cell phone call log showed it went on for ninety-four

seconds;

b. Jurors heard the recording of Conrads interview with Wallace wherein Conrad

appears confused at the 94-second phone call;

c. WALLACE testified that Conrad could not explain the call;

d. The State prosecutors led jury to believe that Conrad had a 94-second phone

conversation with Heidy shortly before her death and additionally, that Truman was evasive

about not remembering it;

e. Conrad testified at trial that he thought he left a voice mail message but must not

have as there was only four seconds of silence and may have hit the wrong button; an

explanation that becomes a lie to a jury when told that the call was completed.

383. During the first trial proceedings, the State Prosecutors knowingly presented false,

misleading and/or fabricated evidence concerning Conrads purported inconsistent

statements as follows:

a. The State prosecutors knowingly presented the steady theory, testimony and

argument that Conrad gave continually inconsistent statements; that Conrad made these

84
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 85 of 152

statements as fact; and that these inconsistencies showed culpable state of mind;

b. With regard to one alleged statement, the State prosecutors knowingly presented

evidence that:

i. Conrad told Cody Wagner at the hospital that he actually saw a black

guy run out of the house through the corner of his eye;

ii. Thereafter, in closing rebuttal, JOHNSON confused the statement

even further, falsely telling the jury to remember Conrads comment, I saw a black guy out of

the corner of my eye when I was holding Heidy in the house further arguing that the jury

must reject this explanation because there was no one else in the house and that you know,

theres no black guy but was another red herring theory presented by Conrad suggesting that

there was another person in that house.

384. During the first trial proceedings, the State Prosecutors knowingly presented false,

misleading and/or fabricated evidence concerning Conrads purported unusual, angry, or

evasive behavior as follows:

a. The State prosecutors presented testimony from law enforcement officers, the

dispatcher, and the victim advocate, concerning Conrads display of emotion, his inability to

concentrate, his agitation, and his anger, to falsely characterize the behaviors as unusual and

evasive;

b. Trumans anger and threats were also introduced to falsely suggest Conrad

was homicidal and capable of killing his wife.

385. Based upon the false, misleading and/or fabricated evidence knowingly presented to the

jury, the jury found Conrad guilty of both charges on October 22, 2014.

85
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 86 of 152

386. On February 9, 2015, the state court sentenced Conrad to prison for an indeterminate

term of not less than fifteen years and which may be life for the conviction of Murder, a First

Degree Felony; and a consecutive sentence of an indeterminate term of not less than one year

nor more than fifteen years for the conviction of Obstructing Justice, a Second Degree Felony.

Investigation by New Counsel and Motion for New Trial Proceedings

387. On February 18, 2015, trial counsel timely filed a Motion for New Trial, raising

prosecutorial misconduct claims asserted in a previous motion to arrest judgment filed prior to

sentencing.

388. Attorneys Mark Moffat and Ann Taliaferro (New Counsel) thereafter entered an

appearance as substitute counsel on February 25, 2015, and requested additional time to amend

the Motion for New Trial.

389. New Counsel successfully motioned the court to release the GSR samples, the firearms,

and the cell phones in order to conduct independent analysis.

390. New Counsel reviewed the record, the trial exhibits, the discovery disclosed by the

State, had transcripts of the prior proceedings prepared, sought to meet with witnesses, and

reinvestigated the case.

391. New Counsel also filed supplemental discovery requests, requests for information under

the Utah Governmental Records Access Management Act, subpoenas duces tecum, and

multiple motions to compel the Utah County Attorneys Office and Orem City to disclose the

requested information and evidence in compliance with their constitutional, statutory, and

ethical duties of disclosure in a criminal case. Motions were also filed in an attempt to

reconstruct missing portions of the prior trial.

86
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 87 of 152

392. Ultimately, on August 21, 2015, New Counsel filed a lengthy Amended Motion for New

Trial and a detailed memorandum in support. (Amended Motion for New Trial).

393. The Amended Motion for New Trial detailed numerous and pervasive instances of

outrageous police and prosecutorial misconduct, as well as other legal errors that justified the

trial courts grant of a new trial.

394. Upon filing the Amended Motion for New Trial, and confident that Conrad was

entitled to relief due to what had been uncovered during New Counsels investigation, Conrad

sought reasonable bail and release pending the motion for new trial proceedings and appeal

thereafter if necessary.

395. JOHNSON, on behalf of the State, objected to bail or release pending the motion for

new trial proceedings.

396. Conrad remained in custody pending the motion for new trial proceedings. In denying

reasonable bail or release, the court relied in large part on the sworn averments submitted

initially by WALLACE upon which probable cause was initially found.

397. Through investigation and with regard to Dr. Leis, New Counsel discovered:

a. WALLACE, JOHNSON, and others had fabricated evidence and made

materially false statements to the Deputy Medical Examiner in order to obtain his change in his

manner of death determination;

b. WALLACE, JOHNSON and RUIZ presented a 96-slide Power Point designed to

convince Dr. Leis to change his manner of death determination in order to aid the criminal

prosecution. This presentation had never been disclosed previously;

c. The 96-slide PowerPoint contains misleading, inaccurate, and outright false

87
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 88 of 152

information on a variety of topics upon which Dr. Leis based his opinion that Heidy Trumans

manner of death was the result of a homicide;

d. While the entire Power Point was misleading, Dr. Leis was presented a diagram

of the scene.

i. The diagram was erroneous and misleading in material respects,

including the fact that the measurements noted on the diagram were wrong;

ii. Most significantly, the diagram depicts Heidys body located on the far

east side of the kitchen with her head very close to the stairs and her feet located approximately

half-way across the kitchen, several feet away from the hallway opening;

iii. The truth is that Heidys feet were less than one foot from the opening of

the entrance to the hallway.

e. Even beyond the measurements themselves, WALLACE, CROOK, RUIZ,

JOHNSON, and others knew and were aware they were presenting Dr. Leis with false

information when they represented that Heidy traveled a distance of over 12 feet after the shot.

Their knowledge is evidenced from the facts that:

i. they had been in the Truman home on multiple occasions and knew how

very small the area at issue was;

ii. they had been put on notice by a diagram drawn by Heidys brother-in-

aw, Jason Keller, depicting Heidy as falling close to the hallway area at issue;

iii. they attended a reconstruction walk-through exercise and witnessed the

actress portraying Heidy located very close by the hallway area at issue; and

iv. a series of photographs taken during that reconstruction walk-through

88
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 89 of 152

confirms that Heidy was located very close by the hallway area at issue.

f. New Counsel also discovered that presumably at the direction of JOHNSON,

WALLACE prepared a completely new diagram only days before the first trial which contained

different measurements and which deleted the body depiction present in the diagrams shown to

Dr. Leis previously. At trial, Dr. Leis was thereafter presented this completely different

diagram than that ever shown to him before, misleading all to believe that Dr. Leis had viewed

the newly-prepared trial diagram before forming his opinion;

g. After New Counsel presented Dr. Leis with true and accurate information, and

after viewing the scene himself, Dr. Leis honorably corrected his opinion from that presented at

trial, and declared that he could no longer conclude that Heidy Trumans death was a homicide

to any degree of medical or scientific certainty and also, could not rule out the possibility that

Heidy Truman shot herself.

398. Through investigation and with regard to financial motive, New Counsel discovered:

a. The Trumans held several accounts.

i. Both Heidy and Conrad maintained a variety of accounts at separate

banks and additionally, the couple had a joint checking account into which each would deposit

money to pay household bills;

ii. Conrad and Heidy had over $25,000 in readily available cash in their

bank and money market accounts, plus additional cash and assets in safes in their home;

iii. Their retirement accounts collectively contained over $40,000;

iv. Conrad had just sold stock and was looking for an investment vehicle for

the proceeds;

89
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 90 of 152

v. The fact that one of the couples joint accounts may have fallen into the

negative on occasion was not due to a lack of money.

b. The full financial picture, and the fact that the Trumans were not struggling

financially, was known to WALLACE and others prior to meeting with Dr. Leis, and clearly by

the time Conrad was arrested, charged, and prosecuted for murder based upon a false and

fabricated financial motive;

c. WALLACE specifically concluded in his police report that the Trumans did not

appear to be suffering any financial problems prior to Heidys death. New Counsel

discovered, however, that Wallace altered his police report and specifically deleted this

conclusion as to a lack of financial motive;

d. WALLACE and others also knew that Conrad was not seeking additional life

insurance, was not attempting to over-insure his wife, and that Conrad actually resisted taking

out a whole life insurance policy recommended to him;

e. WALLACE and others, including Prosecutor Peters, had been told by financial

advisor, Mr. John Engh, that there was no financial motive for murder, the Trumans were not

struggling financially and also explained that Conrad was not seeking to buy life insurance, but

resisted purchasing the whole life policy Engh admittedly urged;

f. WALLACE, JOHNSON, and others knew there was no motive, financial or

otherwise, prior to meeting with Dr. Leis, and prior to charging, incarcerating, and prosecuting

Conrad for murder;

g. Although knowing there was no financial motive, WALLACE, JOHNSON, and

others presented fabricated, misleading, and false evidence and testimony anyway.

90
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 91 of 152

399. Through investigation and with regard to scene diagrams or depictions, the

dimensions of the residence, and the size and location of Heidys body, New Counsel

discovered:

a. WALLACE and/or other officers mismeasured the scene and every single

measurement on every single diagram disclosed in the case was wrong;

b. In placing Heidys body position accurately, her feet were less than one foot

from the hallway entrance rather than the several feet represented by the diagrams;

c. Perhaps even more critically, in placing Heidys body position accurately, her

feet were less than one foot from the hallway entrance rather than the 12+ feet WALLACE,

CROOK, JOHNSON and others knowingly and pervasively misrepresented.

d. Rather than admitting the measurement errors, there existed an apparent cover-

up by WALLACE, CROOK, JOHNSON, and others which included:

i. The refusal to admit, the failure to disclose, and/or the affirmative

concealment of the measurement errors themselves;

ii. The refusal to admit, the failure to disclose, and/or the affirmative

concealment as to who actually measured, when these measurements took place, and how the

measurements were taken;

iii. the production of multiple inaccurate, misleading and false diagrams,

which were all represented to be true and accurate depictions;

iv. misleading and outright false statements made under oath by CROOK

and WALLACE, as elicited or presented by JOHNSON, as to who measured, the accuracy and

91
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 92 of 152

to-scale nature of the diagrams, and the accuracy of the location of Heidys body and other

pieces of evidence;

v. the knowing introduction of the unfounded and false measurements and

diagrams in court hearings and to the jury; and

vi. the continued presentation of the false measurements and diagrams to

Dr. Leis, and to every other judge, expert, or fact-finder throughout the entire criminal

proceedings;

e. Even beyond the faulty measurements themselves, WALLACE, RUIZ,

JOHNSON, CROOK and others knew and were well aware that they were presenting

misleading and outright false and fabricated information and/or testimony when they

represented that Heidy traveled a distance of over 12 feet after the shot, or when they

represented Heidy was approximately 10 feet from the kitchen table and chairs. Their

knowledge is evidenced from the facts that:

i. they had been in the Truman home on multiple occasions and knew how

very small the areas was;

ii. they had been put on notice by a diagram drawn by Heidys brother-in-

law, Jason Keller, depicting Heidy falling close to the hallway area at issue;

iii. they had attended a reconstruction walk-through exercise and witnessed

the actress portraying Heidy Truman located very close to the hallway area at issue; and/or

iv. they had viewed a series of photographs taken during that reconstruction

walk through that confirm that Heidy Truman was located very close by the hallway area at

issue.

92
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 93 of 152

f. The faulty and misleading measurements, diagrams, other depictions of the

scene, as well as the knowingly false and fabricated claim that Heidy traveled over 12 feet after

the fatal shot, was reported to the media, and relied upon by Conrads trial counsel, Dr. Leis,

every judge, every expert rendering an opinion, and every fact-finder throughout the entire

criminal proceedings;

g. The truth was that Heidys body fell and was located consistent with Conrads

description and consistent with a self-inflicted shot.

400. Through investigation and with regard to the black-handled gun, New Counsel

discovered that its accurate location was also consistent with a self-inflicted shot.

a. CROOK testified at trial that the black-handled gun was 8-10 feet away from

Heidys body when he first saw it by Conrads feet, based on the State diagram;

b. Dr. Leis then testified at trial that had this been a self-inflicted wound, the gun

would likely have been found close to the body and would have likely been within 2-3 feet of

Heidys body if self-discharged;

c. When considered in context of the correct measurements (noted above) as well

as the correct location of Heidys body, the black-handled gun was not and could not have been

8-10 feet away as knowingly misrepresented by WALLACE, CROOK, JOHNSON, and others;

d. WALLACE, JOHNSON and others knew that the black-handled gun was not

this significant distance away from Heidys body, because WALLACE, JOHNSON, blood

spatter expert Squire, and others were told by officers and first responders within hours of the

shooting that the black handled gun was found next to the victim before it was kicked under

the kitchen table;

93
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 94 of 152

e. WALLACE, CROOK, JOHNSON and others knew that the black handled gun

was not this significant distance away from Heidys body, because all had been to the Truman

home on multiple occasions and knew how very small the area was; because all had been to the

reconstruction walk through; and because the reconstruction photos themselves establish that, at

most, the firearm was within 3 feet of Heidys body.

401. Through investigation and with regard to the bullet casing, New Counsel discovered

that its location and condition was consistent with and evidence of a self-inflicted shot in that

hallway area.

a. WALLACE, with the advice and authorization for presentment by JOHNSON,

stated under oath on innumerable occasions in affidavits that there was no evidence to suggest

that the fatal shot was fired in the hallway area by the bathroom, and as such, the only area

where the shot could have occurred was in front of the pantry door ostensibly several feet away.

b. At the preliminary hearing and trial, WALLACE and the prosecutors presented

photographs and testimony showing that the casing from the black-handled gun was located in

the hallway just outside the bathroom door, next to a vacuum cleaner and a pair of socks;

c. WALLACE testified at trial that the casing held little evidentiary value because

the casing could have been kicked to that location inadvertently in the chaos;

d. Contrary to WALLACEs false and misleading testimony, the location of the

casing is important:

i. the location of the casing corroborates Conrads explanation of events

and the discharge of the firearm in that area where he heard the pop;

ii. had the casing been kicked or moved into the hallway in the chaos of the

94
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 95 of 152

contaminated and bloody scene, the casing would have had blood or other material on it, given

amount of blood present and tracked throughout the house; It did not as confirmed by the

photographic evidence and forensic analysis;

iii. due to fact that the black-handled gun ejects to the right and backward,

the location of the casing was inconsistent with WALLACEs and the prosecutors theory that

the shooting occurred near the pantry door; had the shot occurred in front of pantry door, it is

unlikely the casing would have been found to the west, around a corner in front of the bathroom

door, but instead, would have likely been located somewhere in the kitchen area or the living

room area of the home downstairs;

iv. Since the location of the casing in the hallway area is consistent with the

firearm discharge in that area and therefore, WALLACE and others made false statements when

averring that that there was no evidence to suggest that the fatal shot was fired in the hallway

area by the bathroom.

e. Relatedly, with regard to the casing and evidence presented at trial

regarding a misfiring that occurred when test firing the black-handled gun, New Counsel

discovered that:

i. WALLACE, with the advice and authorization for presentment by

JOHNSON, stated under oath on innumerable occasions in affidavits that there was no

evidence to suggest that the fatal shot was fired in the hallway area by the bathroom, and as

such, the only area where the shot could have occurred was in front of the pantry door

ostensibly several feet away;

ii. WALLACE and the prosecution untruthfully told the jury during trial

95
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 96 of 152

that in testing the black-handled gun, the gun misfired and that misfire meant that firearm

failed to fire on one occasion. JOHNSON elicited or failed to correct this false testimony;

iii. To the contrary, police reports document that during the test-firing of

the black-handled gun, the gun discharged accidentally and shot through the ceiling of the

testing facility;

iv. This accidental discharge was the only way the casing was ever found

consistent with where it was located the night of Heidys death;

v. Therefore, WALLACE and others also made false statements when

averring that that there was no evidence to suggest that the fatal shot was fired in the hallway

area by the bathroom.

402. Through investigation and with regard to the GSR evidence, New Counsel discovered:

a. The GSR samples taken from the hands of Heidy and Conrad Truman the

night Heidy died had not been analyzed prior to the first trial. New Counsel sent the samples

for analysis and the results were exculpatory and showed that a significant amount of GSR was

found on Heidy Trumans right hand, consistent with her having fired the fatal shot. More

specifically, expert analysis showed that:

i. GSR was present on Heidy Trumans right hand in a quantity and pattern

consistent with firearm discharge;

ii. A large number of two and three-element components were identified as

highly specific to weapon discharge;

iii. It is significant that the particles were found on Heidys right hand, as she

was right-handed and the fatal wound was inflicted to right temple;

96
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 97 of 152

iv. It is significant that no three-particle components were detected on

Heidys left hand, again consistent with her having held and discharged firearm in her right

hand;

v. The pattern of distribution on Heidys right hand, with the concentration

of the particles greatest on the webbing area between her thumb and forefinger, are consistent

with her having recently fired the gun;

vi. Additionally, all alternative explanations for the presence of GSR on

Heidys hand posed by officers or the prosecutors, including theories that Heidy may have

grabbed the gun in a struggle, are undercut by the other forensic evidence, including: a lack of

signs of a struggle; no fingerprints on the gun; the straight shot wound path and contact wound

to the right temple; and a lack of significant abrasions, wounds, stippling or other marks on

Heidys hand.

b. Law enforcement also failed to preserve material GSR evidence by having

Conrad wash his hands prior to the time his samples were taken;

c. It appears that additional GSR samples that were taken from other items of

evidence were lost or not preserved; and

d. Law enforcement officers and the prosecutors failed to disclose to prior counsel

the fact that the samples had not been sent for analysis, but instead presented surprise, and false,

expert testimony discounting GSR analysis as a forensic tool in order to justify their failures.

403. Through investigation and with regard to the purported 94-second phone call Conrad

had with Heidy prior to her death, New Counsel discovered:

a. Just as Conrad had explained, this was not a completed call;

97
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 98 of 152

b. The cell phone evidence established that the call was not an answered call;

c. In fact, the cell phone records were highly exculpatory and when viewed in

conjunction with other evidence, places Heidy in the master bedroom within arms length of the

black-handled gun approximately three minutes prior to Conrads call to 911;

d. Despite what WALLACE and the prosecution misrepresented to Conrad, in

affidavits, during hearings throughout the proceedings, and to the jury:

i. the phone records establish this was not a completed call, but that Heidy

actually took some action to reject the call, which then sent it to voice mail;

ii. the 94-seconds at issue does not measure the length of a phone

conversation, but is the time it took for Conrads phone to connect with Heidys phone, the call

to be rejected and sent to voicemail, and the four-seconds Heidys phone apparently recorded

prior to disconnecting in some fashion;

iii. according to the phone records, the voice message was retrieved

approximately three minutes before the 911 call was placed;

iv. When officers arrived on scene, Heidys cell phone was located on her

side of the bed in the master bedroom, an arms length away from her night stand where the

black handled gun was usually kept, and with no blood evidence on the white bedding upon

which the cell phone sat;

v. Thus, Conrads responses to questions about a completed call or

conversations with Heidy were not ones of evasiveness, but responses of confusion because he

knew that he did not speak with Heidy on the phone shortly before her death.

98
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 99 of 152

404. Through investigation and with regard to Conrads purportedly inconsistent

statements New Counsel discovered:

a. That the numerous recorded statements established that Conrad told a consistent

story about the material circumstances surrounding the incident;

b. Any purported inconsistencies in some details were not due to a culpable or

obstructive state of mind, but due to fact that Conrad was highly distraught and emotional, had

no idea what happened, and under effects of trauma, asked questions and posed hypotheses as

to what might have happened;

c. Conrad consistently expressed that he did not know what happened, and did not

know how to explain the horrible events he saw; and

d. Importantly, Conrad was not intending to relay to officers the facts as to what

happened; Nor did officers truly take Conrads statements that way;

e. Accordingly, WALLACE, CROOK, RUIZ, LOPEZ, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE

DOE, ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, and others mischaracterized the statements

compelled from Conrad while in the midst of trauma that went well beyond mere interpretation

or spinning of evidence; rather, WALLACE, CROOK, RUIZ, LOPEZ, OFFICER(S)

JOHN/JANE DOE, ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, and others fabricated inconsistent

statements that simply did not exist in order to convict Conrad of both murder and obstruction

of justice.

405. Through investigation and with regard to Conrads purportedly unusual and

threatening behavior, New Counsel discovered, through consultation with a qualified

trauma expert:

99
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 100 of 152

a. That Conrads anger, threats, agitation, and memory issues in the throes of

the horrific scene and chaos were normal reactions, and likely involuntary responses, to trauma;

b. The behavior Conrad exhibited, including memory gaps of the horrific event,

was a normal reaction made by someone in the throes of a traumatic experience;

c. Research has shown that a person in the midst of a highly traumatic event will

exhibit certain expected and usual behaviors, which include anger and aggressive behaviors,

disorganization and confusion, as well as dissociation and panic;

d. Accordingly, WALLACE, CROOK, RUIZ, LOPEZ, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE

DOE, ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, and others mischaracterized Conrads behaviors and

memory issues that occurred as the result of obvious trauma that went well beyond mere

interpretation or spinning of evidence; rather, WALLACE, CROOK, RUIZ, LOPEZ,

OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE and others fabricated

unusual behaviors that were not unusual at all in context, in order to convict Conrad of both

murder and obstruction of justice.

406. On February 12, 2016, JOHNSON and his co-counsel Ryan Peters filed a Memorandum

in Opposition to the Amended Motion for New Trial on behalf of the State. Of relevance to the

claims made herein:

a. JOHNSON and Peters conceded that there was no financial motive, and claim to

have abandoned it before trial;

b. JOHNSON and Peters would not concede, however, that the scene was

mis-measured or the that the distance Heidy purportedly traveled was false. Rather, JOHNSON

and Peters set forth two preposterous arguments: 1) law enforcements measurements were not

100
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 101 of 152

really incorrect, but rather, since Conrads family had control of the home, they may have

remodeled and thereby changed the home dimension; or 2) law enforcements measurements

were not really incorrect, but rather, WALLACE and others employed a disparate system of

measurement whereby 10 inches equaled a foot;

c. After much litigation over the measurements, including several hearings held in

an effort to ascertain who actually measured and to obtain relevant documents and information

from WALLACE and the prosecution, the prosecutors finally conceded at oral argument on the

motion for new trial that the measurements, were in fact incorrect, but maintained any error was

harmless.

407. On August 3, 2016, the state court granted Conrads Amended Motion for New Trial.

Second Criminal Proceedings

408. After the court granted the motion for new trial, New Counsel moved the court to set

reasonable bail and/or other conditions and release Conrad pending the new trial.

409. The State objected.

410. The court denied modification of the one million dollar cash only bail and in doing so,

relied on the findings of probable cause made initially that were based upon WALLACEs

sworn statements which had since been discredited.

411. Conrad remained incarcerated pending his new trial.

412. Several pretrial motions, including motions to dismiss and to suppress evidence, were

filed.

413. Among the pretrial motions, Conrad filed motions to dismiss the case and/or for a new

preliminary hearing based upon the fact that once the fabricated and otherwise misleading and

101
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 102 of 152

false information was excised from consideration, and once the true and correct evidence was

considered, probable cause no longer existed to support the criminal information, to support the

bindover from a preliminary hearing, and to require Conrads continued incarceration.

414. The state court denied all motions filed pretrial, some without prejudice and allowing

Conrad to revisit them at trial.

415. On November 9, 2016, and in an effort to make a diagram for the second trial, Scott

Finch from the Utah County Attorneys Office, under the direction of Deputy Utah County

Attorney Tim Taylor, sought a search warrant for the Truman home in order to conduct

measurements. The affidavit in support of this warrant relied on the false evidence and theories

contained in the warrants sought previously by WALLACE, and additionally states as the basis

for probable cause: Due to the evidence presented at both the preliminary hearing and during

the trial, there is probable cause to believe that Mr. Conrad Truman shot Mrs. Heidy Truman in

their residence located at 220 South 1180 West in Orem, Utah.23

416. A second jury trial was held from February 1- February 24, 2017.

417. The previously fabricated or misleading evidence was either not presented, or rebutted

at the retrial. By way of summary:

a. The fabricated distance traveled evidence was not presented during the second

trial and corrected measurements and diagrams were offered. The officers lack of credibility,

the mis-measurements and their lack of accountability, and their true knowledge of the false

theories was also explored;

23
As with all the other warrants, then, and as set forth herein, this warrant also was invalid since
it was not based upon the requisite showing of probable cause, and further, because the affidavit in
support contained and/or relied upon several false and misleading material statements or omissions made
knowingly or in reckless disregard for the truth.

102
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 103 of 152

b. The tainted opinion Dr. Leis rendered in trial number one as a result of the false

information he had been given was corrected in trial number two. At retrial, Dr. Leis testified

that he had been given faulty information by law enforcement and the prosecutors, could not

make a finding that Heidy Trumans death was the result of homicide, and could not rule out

suicide as the manner of death. Significantly, Dr. Leis testified that the contact nature of

Heidys wound, to the right temple, with the wound path noted, was consistent with suicide and

that Dr. Leis had never performed an autopsy (except for perhaps once) where this wound

pattern was determined to be a homicide;

c. The fabricated financial motive was not presented during the second trial.24 As

noted, the prosecutors conceded there was not a financial motive and claimed to have

abandoned the financial motive theory previously;

d. The prosecutors introduced an expert to speak to suicide risk factors.

Thereafter, and through cross examination of the expert and other witnesses, New Counsel

developed evidence that Heidy Truman held several risk factors for suicide;

e. GSR analysis which had not been conducted prior to trial number one was

presented on retrial. Conrad presented the evidence and expert analysis finding that GSR was

present on Heidy Trumans right hand and was consistent with her having fired the fatal shot.

Upon cross examination of prosecution witnesses and experts, all conceded at least, that the

presence of GSR on Heidy Trumans right hand in the webbing area between her thumb and

24
Although, prosecutors still presented evidence of the Trumans joint checking account (for
some unknown reason), and evidence that Conrad filed an accidental death claim through his work (for
the purpose of introducing that Conrad stated that Heidys death was due to an accident).

103
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 104 of 152

forefinger was consistent with her having fired the fatal shot, and that no one could rule out that

Heidy Truman shot herself;

f. The cell phone records and the accurate information concerning the 94 second

phone call was presented and explored. Accurate evidence that the 94-second phone call was

not a completed call and that Conrad did not have a phone conversation with his wife was

presented. Additionally, expert cell phone record analysis was presented that showed that

Conrads phone call was rejected by Heidys cell phone; that the call then went to voicemail on

Heidy Trumans phone; the voicemail message was retrieved and accessed approximately three

minutes prior to the 911 call being placed; and that Heidys cell phone was found on Heidys

side of the bed in the master bedroom, within an arms length from the night stand which kept

the black-handled firearm, which is the firearm that fired the fatal shot. It was shown that this

evidence also comports with Conrads explanation of events that he was in the kitchen, heard a

door open, then a short time later (whether it was one minute or five minutes, he didnt know);

he heard a pop sound from the hallway area; Heidy went down, he panicked, and he called 911

as fast as he could;

g. The prosecution again depended upon their claim that Conrads statements were

inconsistent and knowingly so in order to be indicative of a guilty mind. The prosecution was

not allowed to adduce evidence from witnesses that Conrads behavior was unusual, although

officers were allowed to testify that Conrad made threats and was agitated and angry. New

Counsel presented evidence as well as argument showing that Conrads statements were

actually not inconsistent as continually asserted by the prosecution, and presented expert

evidence from an experienced trauma expert that any angry or aggressive behaviors are

104
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 105 of 152

actually well-documented characteristics of one suffering from such a gruesome and traumatic

experience.

418. Other misleading and/or false information was either not presented or discredited by the

defense in trial number two.

419. Closing arguments were heard and the jury began deliberations on February 23, 2017.

420. On February 24, 2017, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty on both counts.

421. Conrad was processed and released within hours.

*******

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

UNLAWFUL DETENTION AND INTERROGATION


42 U.S.C. 1983 Violation of Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights
to Be Free from Unreasonable Search and Seizure
and Right Against Self-Incrimination

(As Against Defendants CROOK, RUIZ, LOPEZ, FERRE,


OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE 1-10, CITY and OCPD)

422. Plaintiff alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in the preceding

paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

423. Defendants acted under the color and pretense of Utah State law.

424. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from

unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment applies to the states through

incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

a. A detention or arrest is a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth

Amendment. A seizure occurs when a law enforcement officer, by means of physical force or

show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen;

105
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 106 of 152

b. Further, an initially consensual encounter between a police officer and a citizen

can be transformed into a seizure or detention within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, if,

in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have

believed that he was not free to leave;

c. No citizen may be detained without particularized reasonable articulable

suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime;

d. No citizen may be arrested without probable cause. The intrusiveness and the

conduct of the police officers may turn an encounter into a de facto arrest, at which time,

probable cause is necessary at the initiation

425. The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects a citizen from being

compelled to be a witness against himself in a criminal case. The Fifth Amendment applies to

the states through incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

a. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individuals from

being compelled to give evidence against themselves in a criminal case. In analyzing

whether a statement, admission, or confession is constitutionally voluntary or has been

instead been compelled, the totality of the circumstances are examined to determine whether

statements were made freely, voluntarily, and without compulsion. Under the totality of the

circumstances test, external factors are considered (such as the duration of the interrogation, the

advisement of Miranda warnings,25 the persistence of the officers, police trickery, absence of

family and counsel, and threats and promises made to the defendant by the officers), as well as

25
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) effectuates, in part, the Fifth Amendment right
against self-incrimination. A Miranda warning is required once a suspect is in custody, or has
otherwise been significantly deprived of his freedom. Thereafter, once an accused has been advised of his
Miranda rights, he may waive these rights but must do so voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently.

106
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 107 of 152

internal factors (such as the persons mental health, mental deficiency, emotional instability,

education, age, and familiarity with the judicial system);

b. A citizens Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination are violated when

statements have been compelled and when those statements are later used in a criminal case to

develop investigatory leads, to initiate a criminal investigation, to bring charges, to support the

prosecution in a probable cause hearing, and used in a criminal trial.26

426. Here, Defendant Officers violated Conrads Fourth Amendment rights as follows:

a. Conrad became a suspect almost immediately upon arrival of the first police

officer and was illegally detained and certainly in police custody, subject to at least a de facto

arrest (absent probable cause that he committed any crime), from that point on;

b. Officers CROOK, LOPEZ, FERRE, and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE

illegally detained and questioned Conrad at the Truman residence on the evening of September

30, 2012, as they refused to take Conrad to the hospital to see his dying wife, refused to allow

him to leave, refused to allow him to freely move around the home or the area, refused to allow

him to care for his dogs or to provide care themselves, gave him orders, threatened to handcuff

him and threatened to not take him to the hospital, refused to allow him to call family or an

attorney or to call for him, all as they detained, questioned and recorded him without providing

him his Miranda warnings or an attorney. At this point, CROOK, LOPEZ, FERRE, and

OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE illegally detained Conrad absent the requisite reasonable

suspicion or probable cause that he committed any crime;

26
Accord Vogt v. City of Hays, Kansas, 844 F.3d 1235 (10th Cir. 2017).

107
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 108 of 152

c. Officer LOPEZ illegally detained and questioned Conrad on the way to the

hospital, and thereafter, officers LOPEZ, RUIZ, and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE illegally

detained and questioned Conrad Truman at the hospital on the evening of September 30, 2012

into the morning hours of October 1, 2012, as officers kept Conrad in their control and custody

at the hospital, would not allow him to be alone with Heidy either before or after her death,

would not allow him to freely communicate with family or provide him an attorney, refused to

allow him to freely move around the hospital or the area and as they questioned him without

providing him his Miranda warnings or an attorney. At this point, LOPEZ, RUIZ, and

OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE illegally detained Conrad absent the requisite reasonable

suspicion or probable cause that he committed any crime;

d. Officer LOPEZ illegally detained and questioned Conrad Truman on the way from

the hospital to the police station, and thereafter, officers LOPEZ, RUIZ, CROOK, and

OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, illegally detained and questioned Conrad at the police station

in the early morning hours of October 1, 2012, as officers kept Conrad in their control and

custody, would not allow him to freely communicate with family or provide him an attorney,

and as they questioned him without providing him his Miranda warnings or an attorney.

Thereafter, once Miranda warnings were finally given, Officers CROOK, RUIZ, and

OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, continued to detain and interrogate Conrad despite affirmative

requests and attempts by Conrad to cease questioning and to leave. At this point, LOPEZ,

CROOK, RUIZ and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE illegally detained Conrad absent the

requisite reasonable suspicion or probable cause that he committed any crime.

108
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 109 of 152

427. Here, Defendant Officers violated Conrads Fifth Amendment rights as follows:

a. Defendant Officers began compelling statements from a clearly hysterical and

traumatized Conrad Truman almost immediately upon arrival of the first police officer. The

compelled and involuntary statements elicited from Conrad were then recorded and used as a

basis for the criminal prosecution, to include the use of the involuntary statements to

specifically charge obstruction of justice, and were thereafter mischaracterized and used at

every stage of the criminal case, including at the preliminary hearing, trial number one, and

upon retrial;

b. Officers CROOK, LOPEZ, FERRE, and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE illegally

detained and questioned Conrad at the Truman residence on the evening of September 30, 2012,

as they refused to take Conrad to the hospital to see his dying wife. Beginning with CROOKs

questioning of Conrad as he sat in a chair within feet of paramedics performing life saving

measures on his dying wife, and for approximately 50 minutes after paramedics took Heidy

away by ambulance, the Defendant Officers peppered Conrad with questions, interrogated him,

and recorded him, as they refused to allow him to leave, refused to take him to the hospital, and

refused to summons family, friends, or an attorney for aid and comfort. Conrad was clearly in

the throes of a horrific and gruesome traumatic event, under the effects of alcohol, in shock, and

was not thinking clearly.

In this state, CROOK, LOPEZ, FERRE, and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE compelled

Conrad to make statements without advising Conrad of his Miranda warnings or obtaining a

valid waiver, compelled him to make statements in his vulnerable mental state, and thereafter,

mischaracterized these compelled statements as inconsistent, evasive, untruthful and

109
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 110 of 152

indicative of a guilty mind. These compelled and involuntary statements were thereafter used

in the criminal case to develop investigatory leads, to initiate a criminal investigation, to bring

charges, to support the prosecution in a probable cause hearing, and used in both trial number

one and upon retrial, all in violation of the Fifth Amendment;27

c. Officer LOPEZ illegally detained and questioned Conrad Truman on the way to

the hospital, and thereafter, officers LOPEZ, RUIZ, and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE

illegally detained and questioned Conrad at the hospital on the evening of September 30, 2012

into the morning hours of October 1, 2012. Conrad was still in the throes of a traumatic event,

he had witnessed both a gruesome scene at the home as well as the grotesque and devastating

state of his loved one, his wife had died only moments prior, and Conrad was still under the

effects of alcohol, in shock, and not thinking clearly. LOPEZ, RUIZ, and OFFICER(S)

JOHN/JANE DOE kept Conrad in their control and custody, would not allow him to be alone

with Heidy either before or after she died, would not allow him to freely communicate with

family or provide him an attorney, and refused to allow him to freely move around the hospital

or the area.

In this state, LOPEZ, RUIZ, and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE compelled Conrad to

make statements without advising Conrad of his Miranda warnings or obtaining a valid waiver,

compelled him to make statements in his vulnerable mental state, and thereafter,

mischaracterized these compelled statements as inconsistent, evasive, untruthful and

indicative of a guilty mind. These compelled and involuntary statements were used in the

criminal case to develop investigatory leads, to initiate a criminal investigation, to bring

27
Accord Vogt v. City of Hays, Kansas, 844 F.3d 1235 (10th Cir. 2017).

110
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 111 of 152

charges, to support the prosecution in a probable cause hearing, and used in both trial number

one and upon retrial, all in violation of the Fifth Amendment;28

d. Officer LOPEZ illegally detained and questioned Conrad Truman on the way from

the hospital to the police station, and thereafter, officers LOPEZ, RUIZ, CROOK, and

OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE illegally detained and questioned Conrad at the police station

for several hours in the early morning hours of October 1, 2012 after Heidys death. Officers

kept Conrad in their control and custody, would not allow him to freely communicate with

family or provide him an attorney, and questioned him without providing him his Miranda

warnings.

After Miranda warnings were eventually given, CROOK, RUIZ and OFFICER(S)

JOHN/JANE DOE continued to detain, interrogate, and accuse Conrad despite Conrads

affirmative requests and attempts to cease questioning and to leave. CROOK was particularly

cruel and baited, belittled, humiliated and accused Conrad of killing his wife, again, despite

Conrads affirmative requests and attempts to cease questioning and to leave. Conrad was still

in the throes of a traumatic event, he had witnessed a gruesome scene and the grotesque state of

his loved one, his wife had just died, and Conrad was still under the effects of alcohol, in shock,

and not thinking clearly. CROOK, RUIZ and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE kept Conrad in

their control and custody, would not allow him to freely communicate with family or provide

him an attorney, refused to allow him to freely move around the area, treated Conrad cruelly

and baited him, and compelled Conrad to make statements despite repeated requests to leave

and cease the interrogation.

28
Accord Vogt v. City of Hays, Kansas, 844 F.3d 1235 (10th Cir. 2017).

111
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 112 of 152

In this state, CROOK, RUIZ and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE compelled Conrad to

make statements in his vulnerable mental state, and thereafter, mischaracterized these

compelled statements as inconsistent, evasive, untruthful and indicative of a guilty mind.

These compelled and involuntary statements were used in the criminal case to develop

investigatory leads, to initiate a criminal investigation, to bring charges, to support the

prosecution in a probable cause hearing, and used in both trial number one and upon retrial, all

in violation of the Fifth Amendment.29

428. Upon information and belief, CITY and the OCPD failed to properly train officers,

including all DEFENDANT OFFICERS and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10, in the

proper observance of a citizens constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure

and self-incrimination, as well as proper and appropriate interrogation techniques, report

writing, the exercise of diligence in handling property, reporting investigation, disclosure of

investigation to the prosecution and to the defense in criminal proceedings, and in ensuring the

presentation of truthful testimony under oath.

429. Instead, and upon information and belief, CITY and the OCPD have created an

institutional culture supporting and encouraging constitutional violations such as those alleged

herein and, in so doing, directly and materially contributed to, and proximately caused, the

violations described herein.

430. The Defendants conduct violated the constitutional rights of the Plaintiff to be free

from unreasonable searches and seizures, compelled self-incrimination in a criminal case, and

the right to have an attorney present before any questioning occurs.

29
Accord Vogt v. City of Hays, Kansas, 844 F.3d 1235 (10th Cir. 2017).

112
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 113 of 152

431. The Defendants conduct violated clearly established and fundamental constitutional

rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

432. No immunity defenses apply to Defendants since their conduct under state law

has violated Plaintiffs clearly established constitutional and statutory rights of which a

reasonable person would be aware. The actions of the Defendants were objectively

unreasonable.

433. The acts of Defendants as set forth above were done with malice or reckless indifference

to the Plaintiffs federally protected rights, thus entitling Plaintiff an award of punitive

damages.

434. The specific acts of CROOK, as set forth above, were done with particular malice or

reckless indifference to the Plaintiffs federally protected rights, thus entitling Plaintiff to an

award of punitive damages.

435. Defendants violations of Plaintiffs Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as

set forth above have caused Plaintiff serious personal, emotional, and psychological distress,

and Plaintiff was deprived of his right to be secure in his person against unreasonable seizure of

his person. Defendant Officers actions were demeaning, humiliating, emotionally abusive, and

caused him the loss of being with a dying loved one. Further, Defendants use of Plaintiffs

compelled and involuntary statements during the criminal case and two separate trials, as well

as Defendants mischaracterizations of the compelled and involuntary statements, resulted in

Plaintiffs faulty conviction in the first trial and 3 years of incarceration.

113
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 114 of 152

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE AND


PERVASIVE FALSE STATEMENTS OR OMISSIONS
IN SUPPORT OF WARRANTS AND INVESTIGATIVE SUBPOENAS
42 U.S.C. 1983 Violation of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Right
To Be Free From Unreasonable Search and Seizure

(As Against WALLACE, JOHNSON, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE,


ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, CITY and OCPD)

436. Plaintiff alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in the preceding

paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

437. Defendants acted under the color and pretense of Utah State law.

438. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth

Amendment also states that: no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by

Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or

things to be seized. U.S. Const., amend IV. The Fourth Amendment applies to the states

through incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

439. Affiants violate the Fourth Amendment when they make materially false statements in

affidavits intentionally, knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth, or knowingly or

recklessly omit information which, if included, would vitiate probable cause.30 In such a

situation, probable cause is measured by: removing any false information from the affidavit;

including any omitted material information; and then inquiring whether the modified affidavit

establishes probable cause for the warrant.

440. In Utah, the issuance of investigative subpoenas in criminal investigations is governed

by the Subpoena Powers for Aid of Criminal Investigation and Grants of Immunity Act,

codified in Utah Code Ann. 77-22-1, et. seq.

30
Accord Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).

114
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 115 of 152

a. The Act provides procedures for courts and prosecutors to follow when there is a

need to keep the investigative subpoenas secret. See Utah Code Ann. 77-22-2 (6)-(7);

b. While the Act allows information to be sought prior to the filing of criminal

charges, access to records must still comport with constitutional constraints, including the

Fourth Amendment proscriptions against unreasonable searches and seizure;31

c. Based upon the constitutional protections, the person holding an expectation of

privacy in the information sought by investigative subpoena must generally be notified of the

issuance of the subpoena in order to allow the person an opportunity to quash it;

d. Subpoena Powers Act subpoenas must each be supported by an application

establishing good cause for their issuance, as well as a showing that the requested information

is reasonably related to the criminal investigation authorized by the court.32

441. In this case, each and every warrant and investigative subpoena sought and obtained was

not supported by, and clearly devoid of, the requisite showing of probable cause for the warrant

or the requisite showing of good cause for the investigative subpoena.

As such, WALLACE and any OFFICER JOHN/JANE DOE who sought, obtained,

and/or executed the clearly invalid warrants and subpoenas, violated Plaintiffs right to be free

from unreasonable searches and seizures.

442. In this case, the affidavit in support of each and every warrant and investigative

subpoena contained pervasive materially false statements and/or omissions made intentionally,

knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth, which when corrected, vitiates probable

cause.

As such, WALLACE or other OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE as the affiant, and

31
See, e.g., Matter of Criminal Investigation, 7th Dist. Court No. CS1, 754 P.2d 633 (Utah 1988),
superceded by statute (on different grounds).
32
See, e.g., Utah Code Ann. 77-22-2 (2)-(3); In re Criminal Investigation, 754 P.2d at 638.

115
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 116 of 152

JOHNSON or any other defendant OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE or ATTORNEY(S)

JOHN/JANE DOE who provided information, gave advice, aided, supervised the preparation of

the affidavit, or authorized its presentment, and who made or authorized deliberately false

statements or material omissions intentionally and/or with reckless disregard or the truth,

violated Plaintiffs right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

443. The pervasive false statements, mischaracterizations and/or omissions contained in each

and every affidavit in support of warrants and investigative subpoenas were material to

the finding of probable cause or good cause for the authorization of each and every warrant

and/or investigative subpoena authorized by a court in this case.

444. Additionally, as to the investigative subpoenas, Conrad Truman had a right to privacy in

his personal documents and records. Because proper procedure was not followed in obtaining

the investigative subpoenas, because the requisite showings were not made, and because Conrad

was given no opportunity to object, his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable

searches and seizures was violated.

445. Upon information and belief, CITY and the OCPD failed to properly train officers,

including WALLACE and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10, in the proper observance of

a citizens constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure, the importance and

inviolate nature of an oath, the absolute necessity that an affidavit under oath in support of a

warrant or subpoena be wholly truthful and accurate and not misleading in any manner, and in

ensuring the presentation of truthful testimony under oath.

446. Instead, and upon information and belief, CITY and the OCPD have created an

institutional culture supporting and encouraging constitutional violations such as those alleged

herein and, in so doing, directly and materially contributed to, and proximately caused, the

violations described herein.

116
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 117 of 152

447. The Defendants conduct violated the constitutional right of the Plaintiff to be free from

unconstitutional searches and seizures.

448. The Defendants conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional

rights prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures, the requirement of probable cause for the

issuance of warrants, and the prohibition against making false and misleading statements or

material omissions in sworn affidavits to a court of law, all rights of which a reasonable person

would have known.

449. No immunity defenses apply to Defendants since their conduct under state law has

violated Plaintiffs clearly established constitutional and statutory rights of which a reasonable

person would be aware. The actions of the defendants were objectively unreasonable.

450. JOHNSON is not entitled to immunity, absolute or otherwise, for his actions in the

investigative stages of this case and for his aid, advice, and presentment of false information to

a court of law, which violated Plaintiffs clearly established constitutional and statutory rights

of which a reasonable person would be aware. JOHNSON is also not entitled to immunity,

absolute or otherwise, with regard to any affidavit or other document he signed under oath in

presenting to a court of law.

451. The acts of Defendants as set forth above were done with malice or reckless indifference

to the Plaintiffs federally protected rights, thus entitling Plaintiff an award of punitive

damages.

452. Defendants violations of Plaintiffs Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as set

forth above have deprived Plaintiff of his right to be secure in his person against unreasonable

intrusion into his privacy and search of his person, property and effects.

117
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 118 of 152

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

UNLAWFUL ARREST WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE


42 U.S.C. 1983 Violation of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Right
To Be Free From Unreasonable Search and Seizure

(As Against WALLACE, CITY and OCPD)

453. Plaintiff alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in the preceding

paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

454. Defendants acted under the color and pretense of Utah State law.

455. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from

unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment applies to the states through

incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

456. An arrest is a seizure, and the Fourth Amendment prohibits police officers from

arresting a person unless there is probable cause to do so.

457. The Fourth Amendment also states that: no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable

cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched,

and the persons or things to be seized. U.S. Const., amend IV. Affiants violate the Fourth

Amendment when they make materially false statements in affidavits intentionally, knowingly,

or with reckless disregard for the truth, or knowingly or recklessly omit information which, if

included, would vitiate probable cause.33 In such a situation, probable cause is measured by:

removing any false information from the affidavit; including any omitted material information;

and then inquiring whether the modified affidavit establishes probable cause for the warrant.

458. On July 18, 2013, WALLACE signed under oath an affidavit in support of an arrest

warrant for Conrad Truman.

33
Accord Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).

118
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 119 of 152

459. On July 19, 2013, WALLACE and JOHNSON presented this affidavit and request for

an arrest warrant to District Court Judge Samuel McVey.

460. Judge McVey signed the arrest warrant and issued a one million dollar cash-only bail.

461. WALLACE obtained the arrest warrant by referring to fabricated evidence and making

false statements, mischaracterizations, and/or material omissions in the warrant affidavit that

created falsehoods.

462. The numerous false statements and/or omissions were material and misled the judicial

officer into issuing the arrest warrant without probable to support Conrads arrest in this case.

463. WALLACE made those false statements and/or omissions intentionally, knowingly, or

with reckless disregard for the truth.

464. When the fabricated and false information is removed from the affidavit in support of

the arrest warrant, and when omitted material information is added, the modified affidavit does

not establish probable cause for Conrads arrest.

465. WALLACEs conduct as stated violated the constitutional right of the Plaintiff to be

free from unconstitutional seizures.

466. Upon information and belief, CITY and the OCPD failed to properly train officers,

including WALLACE and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10, in the proper observance of

a citizens constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure, the importance and

inviolate nature of an oath, the absolute necessity that an affidavit under oath in support of a

warrant or subpoena be wholly truthful and accurate and not misleading in any manner, and in

ensuring the presentation of truthful testimony under oath.

467. Instead, and upon information and belief, CITY and the OCPD have created an

institutional culture supporting and encouraging constitutional violations such as those alleged

119
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 120 of 152

herein and, in so doing, directly and materially contributed to, and proximately caused, the

violations described herein.

468. Defendants conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures, the requirement of probable cause for the

issuance of warrants, and the prohibition against fabricating evidence and making false and

misleading statements or material omissions in sworn affidavits to a court of law, all

fundamental rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

469. No immunity defenses apply here since Defendants conduct under state law has

violated Plaintiffs clearly established constitutional and statutory rights of which a reasonable

person would be aware. Defendants actions were objectively unreasonable.

470. Defendants acts as set forth above were done with malice or reckless indifference to the

Plaintiffs federally protected rights, thus entitling Plaintiff an award of punitive damages.

471. Defendants violations of Plaintiffs Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as set

forth above not only deprived Plaintiff of his right to be secure in his person against

unreasonable intrusion into his privacy and seizure of his person, but wrongfully deprived

Plaintiff of his liberty.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

UNLAWFUL PRETRIAL DETENTION


42 U.S.C. 1983 Violation of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Right
To Be Free From Unreasonable Search and Seizure

(As Against WALLACE, CROOK, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE 1-10, CITY and OCPD)

472. Plaintiff alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in the preceding

paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

473. Defendants acted under the color and pretense of Utah State law.

474. Defendants knowingly, intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth imprisoned

120
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 121 of 152

Conrad with no probable cause or reasonable grounds for believing that Conrad committed

murder or obstruction of justice, thereby unreasonably incarcerating Conrad for more than 3

years without any legal basis.

475. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from

unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment applies to the states through

incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

476. The Fourth Amendment establishes the standards and procedures governing pretrial

detention and prohibits law enforcement or other government officials from detaining a person

absent probable cause.34

477. The Fourth Amendment, standing alone, guarantees a fair and reliable determination of

probable cause as a condition for any significant pretrial restraint.35

478. The Fourth Amendments protections surrounding pretrial detention apply even after the

start of legal process in a criminal case that is, even after a judge's determination of

probable cause.36 Where legal process has gone forward, but has done nothing to satisfy the

probable cause requirement, it does not extinguish a detainee's Fourth Amendment claim.

479. In order to state a claim under these circumstances, Plaintiff must show that

defendant(s): caused; a seizure of the Plaintiff pursuant to legal process unsupported by

probable cause; and criminal proceedings terminated in plaintiff's favor.

480. Here, WALLACE, CROOK, and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE caused Plaintiffs

seizure pursuant to legal process unsupported by probable cause in two ways:

a. First, Plaintiff was arrested pursuant to a warrant on July19, 2013, and initially

34
See Manuel v. City of Joliet, Ill., 137 S. Ct. 911, 91415, 197 L. Ed. 2d 312 (2017) (citing
Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 111, 95 S.Ct. 854, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975)).
35
Manuel v. City of Joliet, Ill., 137 S. Ct. 911, 91718, 197 L. Ed. 2d 312 (2017).
36
See Manuel v. City of Joliet, Ill., 137 S. Ct. 911, 91415, 197 L. Ed. 2d 312 (2017) (citing
Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 274, 114 S.Ct. 807, 127 L.Ed.2d 114 (1994) (plurality opinion)).

121
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 122 of 152

detained for 5 months and 22 days until January 10, 2014, at which time the court found

probable cause for the bindover. The courts probable cause determination at the time of

authorizing arrest and in proceedings thereafter prior to the preliminary hearing, was based

upon WALLACEs, CROOKs, and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOEs fabricated evidence,

false statements and omissions in the arrest warrant affidavits, and false statements and

omissions relayed at Plaintiffs bail hearing. Plaintiffs detention was therefore unreasonable

because it was based solely on false evidence rather than truly supported by probable cause;

b. Second, Plaintiff was thereafter detained for 3 years, one month, and fourteen days

after the bindover order January 10, 2014 until his acquittal on February 24, 2017. The courts

probable cause determination at the time of bindover, which remained standing even after a new

trial was granted and throughout retrial, was again based upon WALLACEs, CROOKs, and

OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOEs fabricated evidence and false statements and omissions

presented at the preliminary hearing, and thereafter, false statements made under oath to a court

of law and to two juries.

481. The criminal proceedings ultimately terminated in Plaintiff's favor when he was

acquitted by a jury on February 24, 2017, after all of the falsehoods had been uncovered and

corrected.

482. Because the magistrates determination of probable cause in issuing the warrant of

arrest, as well as at the preliminary hearing, was based solely on fabricated evidence and false

statements and omissions, the probable cause findings do not expunge Plaintiffs Fourth

Amendment claim for his lengthy illegal pretrial detention absent probable cause.37

483. Upon information and belief, CITY and the OCPD failed to properly train officers,

including WALLACE and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10, in the proper observance of
37
Accord Manuel v. City of Joliet, Ill., 137 S. Ct. 911, 91314 (2017).

122
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 123 of 152

a citizens constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure and due process, the

importance and inviolate nature of an oath, the absolute necessity that an affidavit under oath in

support of a warrant be wholly truthful and accurate and not misleading in any manner, and in

ensuring the presentation of truthful testimony under oath.

484. Also upon information and belief, CITY and the OCPD failed to properly train officers,

including all DEFENDANT OFFICERS and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10, in the

proper handling of evidence, the proper reporting of police activity, proper interview

techniques, and the exercise of diligence in handling property, reporting investigation,

disclosure of investigation to the prosecution and to the defense in criminal proceedings, and in

ensuring the presentation of truthful testimony under oath.

485. Instead, and upon information and belief, CITY and the OCPD have created an

institutional culture supporting and encouraging constitutional violations such as those alleged

herein and, in so doing, directly and materially contributed to, and proximately caused, the

violations described herein.

486. The Defendants conduct violated the constitutional right of the Plaintiff to be free from

unconstitutional searches and seizures, specifically here, Plaintiffs continued and unreasonable

pretrial detention absent probable cause.

487. The Defendants conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures, the fair and reliable determination of probable

cause as a condition for any significant pretrial restraint, and the prohibition against fabricating

evidence and making false and misleading statements or material omissions in sworn affidavits

to a court of law, all fundamental rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

488. No immunity defenses apply to Defendants since their conduct under state law

has violated Plaintiffs clearly established constitutional and statutory rights of which a

123
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 124 of 152

reasonable person would be aware. The actions of the defendants were objectively

unreasonable.

489. The acts of Defendants as set forth above were done with malice or reckless indifference

to the Plaintiffs federally protected rights, thus entitling Plaintiff an award of punitive

damages.

490. Defendants violations of Plaintiffs Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as set

forth above not only deprived Plaintiff of his right to be secure in his person against

unreasonable seizure of his person, but wrongfully deprived Plaintiff of his liberty.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
42 U.S.C. 1983 Violation of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Right
To Be Free from Unreasonable Seizure and the Right Not to Be Deprived of Liberty
Without Due Process of Law

(As Against WALLACE, RUIZ, JOHNSON, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE,


ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, CITY and OCPD)

491. Plaintiff alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in the preceding

paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

492. Defendants acted under the color and pretense of Utah State law.

493. Defendants violated Plaintiffs constitutional rights by basing the arrest, preliminary

hearing, subsequent prosecution, and subsequent retrial, first upon fabricated and false

evidence, and thereafter, continuing the prosecution absent probable cause that Plaintiff

committed any crime, ultimately resulting in the deprivation of Plaintiffs liberty for more than

3 years.

494. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from

unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment applies to the states through

incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

124
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 125 of 152

495. The Fourth Amendment covers claims of malicious prosecution.

496. Unlike a false arrest or false imprisonment claim, malicious prosecution concerns

detention only after the institution of legal process. A malicious prosecution claim remedies

those detentions accompanied not by an absence of legal process, but by the wrongful

institution and continuation of the legal process.38

497. The initial seizure of plaintiff is governed by the Fourth Amendment, but at some point

after arrest, and certainly by the time of trial, and retrial, the constitutional analysis shifts to the

Due Process Clause. 39

498. Whether a Fourth Amendment or Due Process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment,

a malicious prosecution claim includes the following elements:

a. The Defendant caused the Plaintiffs prosecution;

b. The original action terminated in favor of the Plaintiff;

c. No probable cause supported the original arrest, continued confinement, or

prosecution;

d. Defendant acted with malice; and

e. The Plaintiff sustained damages.

38
The Tenth Circuit has noted:

Because a person unlawfully arrested without legal process can bring a


Fourth Amendment claim sounding in false imprisonment, . . ., the malicious
prosecution framework in a sense allows a second Fourth Amendment claim
to come on the heels of the first one. . . . But because the institution of legal
process separates the two claimsand thus makes them legally distinctwe
think the two claims, though grounded in the same constitutional provision,
can coexist.

Wilkins v. DeReyes, 528 F.3d 790, 799 (10th Cir. 2008) (citations to authority omitted).
39
See Pierce v. Gilchrist, 359 F.3d 1279, 128586 (10th Cir. 2004).

125
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 126 of 152

499. Defendants caused Plaintiffs prosecution in the following manner:

a. Defendant WALLACE, RUIZ, JOHNSON and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE

caused the plaintiff's prosecution as they presented fabricated evidence, false statements, and

false theories to the State Deputy Medical Examiner to secure his opinion, findings, and expert

testimony, that Heidy Trumans death was the result of a homicide;

b. Defendant WALLACE caused the plaintiff's arrest, continued confinement, pretrial

detention, continued confinement and criminal prosecution as he attested to fabricated evidence,

false statements, and false theories in the arrest warrant. Defendant JOHNSON is also liable for

presenting it, along with WALLACE, to a magistrate for signing. When the false and

misleading information is removed from the consideration, or when omitted material

information is included, the modified affidavit does not establish probable cause;

c. Defendant WALLACE caused the plaintiff's prosecution and continued confinement

as he attested to fabricated evidence, false statements, and false theories in the probable cause

statement supporting the filing of the criminal Information. Defendant JOHNSON is also liable

for signing the information under oath and presenting it to a court of law. When the false and

misleading information is removed from the consideration, or when omitted material

information is included, the modified statement does not establish probable cause;

d. Defendant WALLACE, CROOK, RUIZ, JOHNSON, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE

DOE and ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE caused the Plaintiff's prosecution and continued

confinement as their fabricated evidence, false statements and false theories were presented to a

court as part of warrant affidavits; were presented to a court at a bail hearing; and thereafter,

were presented to a court at a state preliminary hearing in order to support probable cause to

bind Conrad over for trial. When the false and misleading information is removed from the

consideration, or when omitted material information is included, the modified evidence does

126
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 127 of 152

not establish probable cause;

e. Defendant WALLACE, CROOK, JOHNSON, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE

DOE and ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE caused the Plaintiff's prosecution and continued

confinement as their fabricated evidence, false statements and false theories were presented to a

jury, which resulted in a false conviction;

f. After the first trial and after fabricated evidence was uncovered, Defendants

WALLACE, CROOK, JOHNSON, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, and ATTORNEY(S)

JOHN/JANE DOES continued to lie and not tell the truth, thereby causing Conrads continued

incarceration and continued prosecution.

g. Upon information and belief, CITY and the OCPD failed to properly train officers,

including all DEFENDANT OFFICERS and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10, in the

proper observance of a citizens constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure

and due process, the importance and inviolate nature of an oath, the absolute necessity that an

affidavit under oath in support of a warrant be wholly truthful and accurate and not misleading

in any manner, and in ensuring the presentation of truthful testimony under oath.

h. Also upon information and belief, CITY and the OCPD failed to properly train

officers, including all DEFENDANT OFFICERS and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10,

in the proper handling of evidence, the proper reporting of police activity, proper interview

techniques, and the exercise of diligence in handling property, reporting investigation,

disclosure of investigation to the prosecution and to the defense in criminal proceedings, and in

ensuring the presentation of truthful testimony under oath.

i. Instead, and upon information and belief, CITY and the OCPD have created an

institutional culture supporting and encouraging constitutional violations such as those alleged

127
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 128 of 152

herein and, in so doing, directly and materially contributed to, and proximately caused, the

violations described herein.

500. The original action terminated in favor of the Plaintiff. After the truth was uncovered

and presented to a jury upon retrial, absent the falsehood and lies, the Plaintiff was acquitted of

both charges on February 24, 2017.

501. No probable cause supported the original arrest, continued confinement, or prosecution,

but instead, the original arrest, continued confinement and continued prosecution was based

upon fabricated, mischaracterized, and knowingly false evidence and theories as set forth herein

and throughout this complaint, and incorporated fully in this paragraph.

502. Defendants acted with malice or for a purpose other than bringing the plaintiff to justice.

a. Defendants caused this criminal prosecution, even though they knew or should have

known there was insufficient evidence to move forward;

b. Prior to trial number one, Defendants caused the criminal prosecution to continue

even though Defendants knew their evidence was incorrect, false and misleading, all in an

attempt to cover up their own mistakes, faulty judgments, misdeeds, and wrongdoing;

c. After trial number one, even when the errors and misdeeds were uncovered,

Defendants caused the criminal prosecution to continue, maintained their false positions and

continued prosecution, all in an attempt to cover up their own mistakes, faulty judgments,

misdeeds, and wrongdoing;

d. Malice may also be inferred from the absence of probable cause.

503. Plaintiff sustained damages, including but not limited to:

a. Incarceration for over 3 years even though Conrad was innocent of the charges;

b. Loss of employment;

c. Considerable humiliation, mortification, substantial emotional distress, severe

128
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 129 of 152

opprobrium from the community, which he still encounters due to the false impression that he

committed this gruesome murder; and

d. While falsely imprisoned, Truman suffered discomfort and injury to his health and

psyche, as well as loss of time and deprivation from his family, friends, and society.

504. The Defendants conduct violated the constitutional right of the Plaintiff to be free from

unconstitutional searches and seizures as well as the right not to be deprived of liberty

without due process of law.

505. The Defendants conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional

rights prohibiting unreasonable seizures, the fair and reliable determination of probable cause as

a condition for any significant pretrial restraint, and the prohibition against fabricating evidence

and making false and misleading statements or material omissions in to a court of law, all

fundamental rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

506. No immunity defenses apply to Defendants since their conduct under state law

has violated Plaintiffs clearly established constitutional and statutory rights of which a

reasonable person would be aware. The actions of the defendants were objectively

unreasonable.

507. JOHNSON is not entitled to immunity, absolute or otherwise, for his actions in the

investigative stages of this case and for his aid, advice, and presentment of false information to

the Deputy Medical Examiner and to a court of law, which violated Plaintiffs clearly

established constitutional and statutory rights of which a reasonable person would be aware.

JOHNSON is also not entitled to immunity, absolute or otherwise, with regard to any affidavit

or other document he signed under oath in presenting to a court of law.

508. The acts of Defendants as set forth above were done with malice or reckless indifference

129
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 130 of 152

to the Plaintiffs federally protected rights, thus entitling Plaintiff an award of punitive

damages.

509. Defendants violations of Plaintiffs Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as set

forth above not only deprived Plaintiff of his right to be secure in his person against

unreasonable seizure of his person, but wrongfully deprived Plaintiff of his liberty without due

process of law.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

MANUFACTURING AND/OR FABRICATING INCULPATORY EVIDENCE


AND WITHHOLDING EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE
42 U.S.C. 1983 Violation of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Right
To Be Free from Unreasonable Search and Seizure and
Right Not to Be Deprived of Liberty Without Due Process of Law

(As Against WALLACE, CROOK, JOHNSON, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE,


ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, CITY, and OCPD)

510. Plaintiff alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in the preceding

paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

511. Defendants acted under the color and pretense of Utah State law.

512. Here, Defendants violated Plaintiffs constitutional rights by fabricating and falsifying

inculpatory evidence and testimony.

513. Falsifying evidence can amount to either a Fourth Amendment violation and/or a Due

Process violation.40

514. Withholding exculpatory information can amount to either a Fourth Amendment

violation and/or a Due Process violation,41 but the duties to disclose and preserve impeachment

and other exculpatory evidence are grounded in the due process right to a fair trial.

515. Both police officers and prosecutors can be liable under the Due Process Clause,
40
See Pierce v. Gilchrist, 359 F.3d 1279, 1293 (10th Cir. 2004).
41
See Pierce v. Gilchrist, 359 F.3d 1279, 1293 (10th Cir. 2004).

130
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 131 of 152

pursuant to 1983, for fabricating and withholding exculpatory evidence.

516. Defendants WALLACE, CROOK, RUIZ, JOHNSON, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE

DOE and ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, intentionally, knowingly and/or with reckless

disregard for the truth fabricated inculpatory evidence by extracting a severely flawed and

tainted expert opinion from Dr. Leis that Heidy Truman death was a homicide prior to the

existence of probable cause to arrest Conrad, in order to use his opinion to wrongfully arrest,

prosecute, bindover and convict.

517. Defendants WALLACE, CROOK, JOHNSON, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE and

ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, intentionally, knowingly and/or with reckless disregard

for the truth, fabricated a financial motive to support Conrads charge and prosecution of

the murder of Heidy Truman, even though no such financial motive existed. Far from

implicating him, a lack of financial motive tended to exonerate him.

518. Defendants WALLACE, CROOK, JOHNSON, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE and

ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, intentionally, knowingly and/or with reckless disregard for

the truth, fabricated distance traveled evidence, diagrams, and testimony which

represented that Heidy Truman traveled a substantial distance from the hallway area where she

fell, and thereby supported Conrads charge and prosecution of the murder of Heidy Truman,

even though the evidence was completely false and fabricated. Far from implicating him, the

true evidence of the location of Heidy Trumans body tended to exonerate him.

519. Defendants WALLACE, CROOK, RUIZ, LOPEZ, JOHNSON, OFFICER(S)

JOHN/JANE DOE and ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, intentionally, knowingly and/or

with reckless disregard for the truth, fabricated testimony that Conrad made inconsistent

statements of fact knowingly and with mal intent, which supported Conrads charge and

prosecution for both obstruction of justice and the murder of Heidy Truman, even though the

131
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 132 of 152

evidence was completely false and fabricated. Defendant Officers knew and were well aware

that Conrad told a consistent rendition of material events, and importantly, that the statements

Conrad made were involuntary, unreliable, and not made as statements of fact, but were

responses and questions posed by a man in the throes of shock and trauma.

520. Defendants, WALLACE, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOES, and ATTORNEY(S)

JOHN/JANE DOE, intentionally, knowingly and/or with reckless disregard for the truth,

fabricated a false 94-second completed call minutes before the 911 call, in order to undercut

Conrads credibility because he had no explanation for the call and was characterized as

evasive. Cell phone records within Defendant Officers own files showed that this was not a

completed call, that the call went to voicemail and was retrieved, and when viewed in

conjunction with the other physical and forensics evidence, put Heidy within arms reach of her

black-handled gun approximately three minutes prior to the 911 call.

521. Defendants, WALLACE, JOHNSON, ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE and

OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, intentionally, knowingly and/or with reckless disregard for

the truth, fabricated a justification as to why the GSR samples were not tested, falsely

claiming because GSR testing is not reliable and that nobody does the testing anymore.

Relatedly, Defendants, WALLACE, JOHNSON, LOPEZ, ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE

and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, intentionally, knowingly and/or with reckless disregard

for the truth, fabricated testimony that Conrad actually manipulatively asked to wash his hands,

and then only thereafter, requested that his hands be tested for GSR, as yet another justification

as to why the GSR samples were not tested. These justifications were fabricated and

concocted in order to cover up the fact that law enforcement failed to preserve Conrads hands,

and additionally, that law enforcement may have lost, destroyed, or failed to preserve other

potential GSR samples that were material to this case.

132
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 133 of 152

522. Also, Defendants WALLACE, JOHNSON, ATTORNEY(s) JOHN/JANE DOE and

OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, knowingly, intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the

truth hid, failed to disclose and/or destroyed a substantial amount of exculpatory evidence that

they knew would have vitiated probable cause to arrest, prosecute, and imprison Conrad,

including:

a. Failure to disclose and hid the 96-slide Power Point presentation given to Dr. Leis

and other information provided to him in the July 2013 meeting with JOHNSON, WALLACE,

and RUIZ;

b. Failure to test exculpatory GSR results from the samples taken from Heidy

Trumans hands;

c. Failure to disclose and hid the fact that the Wagner Family, and specifically Janet

Wagner, had called to make a claim or freeze insurance benefits within months of Heidys

death;

d. Failure to disclose and hid the fact that Heidy had a troubled relationship with the

Wagner Family and her mother, had a hard childhood, and had an adverse family upbringing

which not only is a suicide risk factor, but because the family was somewhat estranged,

discredited their knowledge of Heidy personal thoughts, feelings, and potential conduct as well

as their knowledge of Conrad and his relationship with Heidy;

e. Failure to disclose and hid that the Englert Team concluded that they could not

ascertain how Heidy was shot, where Heidy was located when she was shot, and where Conrad

was located when the shot occurred;

f. Failure to disclose and hid evidence and testimony surrounding the 94-second phone

call and the fact that the voice mail was retrieved by Heidy approximately three minutes prior to

the 911 call;

133
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 134 of 152

g. Failure to disclose, hid and destroyed evidence, notes, and testimony surrounding the

faulty measurements and the truth surrounding who measured, when, and how;

h. Failure to disclose, hid and destroyed witness statements and notes, including

exculpatory statements provided by witnesses, including exculpatory statements made by

financial planner John Engh;

i. WALLACEs hiding and deletion of police report statements indicating the couple

was not struggling financially;

j. It appears that beyond samples taken from Conrad and Heidys hands, additional

GSR samples were taken from other items of evidence and those samples were lost or

destroyed. Given the concerted effort by Defendants to fabricate evidence and probable cause, it

is a reasonable inference that OFFICERS JOHN/JANE DOE intentionally destroyed this

evidence;

523. All of the fabricated and false evidence was used throughout the proceedings, to support

the findings of the Deputy Medical Examiner, to support warrants and investigative subpoenas,

to support the arrest warrant, to support the criminal Information, to support the denial of

reduced bail, to support bindover at the preliminary hearing, and ultimately to support Conrads

prosecution, detention, and conviction in trial number one.

524. Similarly, the withheld material exculpatory information was not considered throughout

the initial proceedings, which ultimately resulted in Conrads conviction in trial number one.

525. Upon information and belief, CITY and the OCPD failed to properly train officers,

including WALLACE, DEFENDANT OFFICERS, and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10,

in the proper observance of a citizens constitutional rights against unreasonable search and

seizure and fundamental due process, the importance and inviolate nature of an oath, the

absolute necessity that an affidavit under oath in support of a warrant be wholly truthful and

134
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 135 of 152

accurate and not misleading in any manner, and in ensuring the presentation of truthful

testimony under oath.

526. Also upon information and belief, CITY and the OCPD failed to properly train officers,

including all DEFENDANT OFFICERS and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10, in the

proper handling of evidence, the proper reporting of police activity, proper interview

techniques, and the exercise of diligence in handling property, reporting investigation,

disclosure of investigation to the prosecution and to the defense in criminal proceedings, and in

ensuring the presentation of truthful testimony under oath.

527. Instead, and upon information and belief, CITY and the OCPD have created an

institutional culture supporting and encouraging constitutional violations such as those alleged

herein and, in so doing, directly and materially contributed to, and proximately caused, the

violations described herein.

528. The Defendants conduct violated the constitutional right of the Plaintiff to be free from

unconstitutional searches and seizures as well as the right not to be deprived of liberty

without due process of law.

529. The Defendants conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

prohibiting unreasonable seizures, the fair and reliable determination of probable cause as a

condition for any significant pretrial restraint, and the prohibition against fabricating evidence,

making false and misleading statements or material omissions in or to a court of law, or

withholding exculpatory evidence, all fundamental rights of which a reasonable person would

have known.

530. No immunity defenses apply to Defendants since their conduct under state law has

violated Plaintiffs clearly established constitutional and statutory rights of which a reasonable

person would be aware. The actions of the defendants were objectively unreasonable.

135
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 136 of 152

531. A prosecutor's fabrication of false evidence during preliminary investigation of potential

crime is not entitled to absolute immunity. Therefore, JOHNSON is not entitled to immunity,

absolute or otherwise, for his actions in fabricating, directing or aiding in the fabrication of

evidence or testimony, which violated Plaintiffs clearly established constitutional and statutory

rights of which a reasonable person would be aware.

532. JOHNSON is not entitled to immunity, absolute or otherwise, for his actions in the

investigative stages of this case and for his aid and advice, and presentment of false information

to the Deputy Medical Examiner and to a court of law, which violated Plaintiffs clearly

established constitutional and statutory rights of which a reasonable person would be aware.

533. JOHNSON is not entitled to immunity, absolute or otherwise, with regard to any

affidavit or other document he signed under oath in presenting to a court of law which

contained materially false statements, mischaracterizations, or omissions, which violated

Plaintiffs clearly established constitutional and statutory rights of which a reasonable person

would be aware.

534. The acts of Defendants as set forth above were done with malice or reckless indifference

to the Plaintiffs federally protected rights, thus entitling Plaintiff an award of punitive

damages.

535. Defendants violations of Plaintiffs Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as set

forth above not only deprived Plaintiff of his right to be secure in his person against

unreasonable seizure of his person, but wrongfully deprived Plaintiff of his liberty without due

process of law.

136
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 137 of 152

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

UTAH STATE CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION


Denial of Right to Information and Preliminary Hearing
42 U.S.C. 1983 Violation of Utah State Constitution art. 1 13

(As Against WALLACE, CROOK, JOHNSON, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE


DOE, ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, CITY and OCPD)

536. Plaintiff alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in the preceding

paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

537. Defendants acted under the color and pretense of Utah State law.

538. Defendants flagrantly violated Plaintiffs constitutional right to a preliminary hearing

under the Utah Constitutions self executing provision requiring that criminal offenses in Utah

be prosecuted by either information after examination and commitment by a magistrate, or by

indictment.

539. Utah Const. art. I, 13 provides:

Offenses heretofore required to be prosecuted by indictment, shall be


prosecuted by information after examination and commitment by a
magistrate, unless the examination be waived by the accused with the
consent of the State, or by indictment, with or without such examination
and commitment. The formation of the grand jury and the powers and
duties thereof shall be as prescribed by the Legislature.

Utah Const. art. I, 13 (emphasis added).

540. Prosecutors in the State of Utah do not regularly use the indictment process, and Utahs

criminal justice system is predominantly one of charging by criminal Information.

541. The examination to which Art. I, 13 refers is an evidentiary hearing that takes place

after the arrest of the defendant and the examination required is equivalent to the preliminary

hearing contemplated by Rules 7(h) and 7(g) of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure, which

requires a showing of probable cause.42


42
See State v. Hernandez, 2011 UT 70, 28, 268 P.3d 822, 830.

137
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 138 of 152

542. In either event, a prosecution must be based upon both a showing and determination of

probable cause, either to and by the Grand Jury if proceeding by way of indictment, or through

the information and examination process if proceeding by way of criminal Information.

543. If prosecuting by way of information and examination, there must be a showing of

probable cause at a preliminary hearing by presenting sufficient evidence to establish that the

crime charged has been committed and that the defendant has committed it.

544. An accused may not be detained and held for trial absent probable cause that a crime has

been committed and that he committed it.

545. The preliminary hearing is an essential step in the criminal process and a defendant

cannot be tried and convicted for an offense distinct from that upon which he was bound over

from a preliminary hearing.

546. Art. I, 13 of the Utah Constitution is a self-executing provision as it articulates a rule

sufficient to give effect to the underlying rights and duties intended by the framers and because

no ancillary legislation is necessary to the enjoyment of [the] right given, or the enforcement of

a duty imposed. . .43

547. When a plaintiff brings suit under a self executing Utah constitutional clause, no notice

of claim is required.

548. In order to state a State Constitutional claim, a Plaintiff must prove:

a. that the constitutional violation was flagrant;

b. that existing remedies do not redress the injuries;

c. and that equitable relief is wholly inadequate to protect the Plaintiffs rights.

549. A flagrant violation means that a defendant must have violated clearly established

constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.


43
Spackman v. Box Elder School Dist., 16 P.3d 533,535 (Utah 2000).

138
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 139 of 152

550. Here, Defendants flagrantly violated Trumans rights as follows:

a. WALLACE submitted fabricated and false statements and material omissions

under oath in the probable cause statement of the criminal Information, which were then

relied upon to support probable cause for the initiation of prosecution and further relied upon to

detain and incarcerate Conrad. JOHNSON drafted the criminal Information which included the

probable cause statements, and also signed it under oath upon presentment to a court of law, and

did so with knowledge and awareness that the statement contained fabricated and false

statements and material omissions. In doing so, WALLACE and JOHNSON violated clearly

established constitutional rights requiring a finding of probable cause based upon truthful and

accurate evidence of which a reasonable person would have known;

b. WALLACE, JOHNSON, and RUIZ presented fabricated and false statements and

material omissions to Dr. Leis, which tainted his expert opinion and manner of death

determination of homicide which was in turn thereafter presented and relied upon by the

magistrate in making the probable cause determination at the preliminary hearing. In doing so,

Defendants violated clearly established constitutional rights requiring a finding of probable

cause based upon truthful and accurate evidence of which a reasonable person would have

known;

c. WALLACE, CROOK, JOHNSON, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE and

ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE presented manufactured, fabricated and false

statements, evidence and material omissions during the preliminary hearing which was

relied upon by the magistrate in making the probable cause determination at the preliminary

hearing. In doing so, Defendants violated clearly established constitutional rights requiring a

finding of probable cause based upon truthful and accurate evidence of which a reasonable

person would have known;

139
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 140 of 152

d. WALLACE, CROOK, JOHNSON, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE and

ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE omitted exculpatory evidence at the preliminary hearing

which was not considered by the magistrate in making the probable cause determination, but had

it been, would have vitiated probable cause. By these omissions of material exculpatory

information, Defendants violated clearly established constitutional rights requiring a finding of

probable cause based upon truthful and accurate evidence of which a reasonable person would

have known;

e. Upon information and belief, CITY and the OCPD failed to properly train officers,

including WALLACE and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10, in the proper observance of a

citizens constitutional rights and fundamental due process, the importance and inviolate nature

of an oath, the absolute necessity that an affidavit under oath in support of a warrant or charging

document be wholly truthful and accurate and not misleading in any manner, and in ensuring the

presentation of truthful testimony under oath;

f. Also upon information and belief, CITY and the OCPD failed to properly train

officers, including all DEFENDANT OFFICERS and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10, in

the proper handling of evidence, the proper and truthful reporting of police activity, the exercise

of diligence in handling property, the proper and truthful reporting of an investigation, full

disclosure of investigation to the prosecution and to the defense in criminal proceedings, and in

ensuring the presentation of truthful testimony and evidence under oath;

g. Instead, and upon information and belief, CITY and the OCPD have created an

institutional culture supporting and encouraging constitutional violations such as those alleged

herein and, in so doing, directly and materially contributed to, and proximately caused, the

violations described herein.

140
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 141 of 152

551. Based upon Defendants actions, Conrad was charged, detained, tried and retried a

second time, even though there was no probable cause to support a bindover. Specifically:

a. The initial probable cause and bindover decision was based upon the fabricated, false,

and misleading testimony and evidence;

b. Thereafter, even after the state court granted a new trial, and even after Conrad

established that the material evidence supporting probable cause for the initial bindover had been

discredited, disproved, and shown to be false, Conrad was not released but remained incarcerated

and retried in a second trial, even though no evidence remained sufficient to establish

probable cause or to support the previous bindover.

552. Because the true and accurate evidence did not establish probable cause, Conrad should

have been immediately released and the case dismissed.

553. Instead, Conrads requests to quash the previous bindover or for a new preliminary

hearing were opposed, almost summarily denied, and the state court relied upon the tainted

evidence and the tainted probable cause findings made previously at the preliminary hearing.

554. Plaintiff was thereby effectively incarcerated and faced trial without the filing of an

Information supported by true probable cause, and was also incarcerated and faced trial without

the finding of true probable cause at a preliminary hearing, violative of his rights under Utah

Const. Art. I, 13.

555. Plaintiff has no existing remedies to redress this state constitutional violation, since he

has already suffered the harm of being falsely charged, bound-over on false evidence and

imprisoned for over 3 years because of the wrongful conduct of the Defendants. Conrad was

only released when the outrageous falsehoods and conduct of Defendants was discovered, and

then, only after a second trial without having had any ability afforded to him to address and

invoke his right to a preliminary hearing and probable cause determination.

141
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 142 of 152

556. There is no other equitable relief that is in any way adequate, and is in fact wholly

inadequate, to redress violation of the constitutional guarantee that a person cannot be

imprisoned, and forced to face trial except upon a preliminary hearing and except upon probable

cause. Only a legal remedy is available.

557. The Defendants conduct violated the constitutional right of the Plaintiff to an

Information and Preliminary Hearing based upon probable cause, and to dismissal and release if

such probable cause is not established.

558. The Defendants conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

prohibiting the fair and reliable determination of probable cause as a condition for any

significant pretrial restraint and before facing trial under the consitution of Utah, as well as the

clear prohibitions against fabricating evidence, making false and misleading statements or

material omissions in or to a court of law, or withholding exculpatory evidence, all fundamental

rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

559. No immunity defenses apply to Defendants since their conduct under state law

has violated Plaintiffs clearly established constitutional and statutory rights of which a

reasonable person would be aware. The actions of the defendants were objectively unreasonable.

560. A prosecutor's fabrication of false evidence during preliminary investigation of potential

crime is not entitled to absolute immunity. Therefore, JOHNSON is not entitled to immunity,

absolute or otherwise, for his actions in fabricating, directing or aiding in the fabrication of

evidence or testimony, which violated Plaintiffs clearly established constitutional and statutory

rights of which a reasonable person would be aware, and which served to then taint the probable

cause determination and violate Plaintiffs state constitutional right to prosecution by

Information and preliminary hearing.

561. JOHNSON is not entitled to immunity, absolute or otherwise, for his actions in the

142
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 143 of 152

investigative stages of this case and for his aid and advice, and presentment of false information

to the Deputy Medical Examiner and to a court of law, which violated Plaintiffs clearly

established constitutional and statutory rights of which a reasonable person would be aware, and

which served to then taint the probable cause determination and violate Plaintiffs state

constitutional right to prosecution by Information and preliminary hearing.

562. JOHNSON is not entitled to immunity, absolute or otherwise, with regard to any

affidavit or other document he signed under oath in presenting to a court of law which contained

materially false statements, mischaracterizations, or omissions, which violated Plaintiffs clearly

established constitutional and statutory rights of which a reasonable person would be aware, and

which served to then taint the probable cause determination and violate Plaintiffs state

constitutional right to prosecution by Information and preliminary hearing.

563. The acts of Defendants as set forth above were done with malice or reckless indifference

to the Plaintiffs constitutionally protected rights, thus entitling Plaintiff an award of punitive

damages.

564. Defendants violations of Plaintiffs State Constutional rights as set forth above not only

deprived Plaintiff of his right to be secure in his person against unreasonable seizure of his

person, but wrongfully deprived Plaintiff of his liberty without due process of law and

specifically, Plaintiffs state constitutional right to prosecution by Information and preliminary

hearing.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FUNDAMENTAL UNFAIRNESS OF CRIMINAL TRIAL


42 U.S.C. 1983 Violation of Fourteenth Amendment Right
To Procedural and Substantive Due Process

(As Against ALL DEFENDANTS)

565. Plaintiff alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in the preceding

143
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 144 of 152

paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

566. Defendants acted under the color and pretense of Utah State law.

567. Plaintiff has a protected liberty interest in freedom from incarceration by the State except

upon conviction after a trial that complies with all constitutional requirements.

568. By engaging in one or more of the following acts and as further detailed above, each

Defendant acting knowingly, intentionally and/or with reckless disregard for the truth, played an

individual and essential role in ensuring that Plaintiffs prosecution and criminal proceedings

lacked fundamental fairness to a degree that shocks the universal sense of justice, including:

a. compelling unreliable and involuntary statements from an innocent man who was

traumatized and in shock, and thereafter, mischaracterizing those statements and using them

against him throughout the entirety of the criminal proceedings and at two trials;

b. misleading and making false statements and material omissions to the Deputy State

Medical Examiner in order to secure an expert opinion of homicide;44

c. making continued and pervasive false statements and material omissions throughout

the entire investigation and criminal proceedings, including under oath in affidavits for warrants,

investigative subpoenas, and charging documents; to the court itself; to defense counsel; to every

expert; and to two juries;45

d. altering, hiding, failing to disclose, and/or making false police reports;

44
Overall, with regard to Dr. Leis, the Defendants: 1) made misleading and false statements to
Dr. Leis in order to secure his determination that the manner of death was homicide; 2) failed to disclose
these statements and the presentation given to Dr. Leis to the defense; 3) presented a new and different
diagram at trial to Dr. Leis without informing him, trial counsel, the court, or the jury of the differences;
and 4) during new trial proceedings, made affirmatively false representations to both the court and
defense counsel related to the failure to disclose exculpatory evidence and the faulty information
presented to Dr. Leis.
45
The significance of the overwhelming misrepresentations goes well-beyond the illegal
gathering of evidence and exhibits a callous disregard for the sanctity of an oath, the duties of ministers of
justice, candor to the tribunal, and respect for the constitutional rights of the citizenry.

144
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 145 of 152

e. failing to preserve, destroying, hiding, and/or withholding exculpatory evidence;

f. manufacturing and/or fabricating inculpatory evidence designed to facilitate

Conrads arrest, prosecution, continued confinement and use of this evidence to secure a false

conviction;46

g. committing and suborning perjury; and

h. fabricating probable cause to arrest, prosecute, and thereafter, to continue to confine

and reprosecute Plaintiff despite a complete lack of probable cause and with the great weight of

evidence pointing to factual innocence.

569. Upon information and belief, CITY and the OCPD also failed to properly train officers,

including all DEFENDANT OFFICERS and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10, in the

proper observance of a citizens constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure and

fundamental due process,, the importance and inviolate nature of an oath, the absolute necessity

that an affidavit under oath be wholly truthful and accurate and not misleading in any manner,

and in ensuring the presentation of truthful testimony under oath.

570. Also upon information and belief, CITY and the OCPD failed to properly train

officers, including all DEFENDANT OFFICERS and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10, in

proper interrogation techniques, proper handling of evidence, proper and truthful reporting of

police activity, the exercise of diligence in handling property, the proper and truthful reporting of

an investigation, full disclosure of investigation to the prosecution and to the defense in criminal

proceedings, and in ensuring the presentation of truthful testimony and evidence under oath.

46
Including: 1) the manufacturing of the lynchpin distance traveled evidence including false
and misleading depictions of the scene, location and dimensions of Heidy Trumans body, measurements,
and diagrams; 2) the manufacturing of the second lynchpin financial motive evidence; and 3)
presenting other false evidence and theories including offering false explanations for not sending the GSR
for analysis, claiming Conrad knowingly made inconsistent statements, claiming Conrad posed true
threats to officers, and claiming that the cell phone records showed a 94-second phone call which did not
exist.

145
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 146 of 152

571. Instead, and upon information and belief, CITY and the OCPD have created an

institutional culture supporting and encouraging constitutional violations such as those alleged

herein and, in so doing, directly and materially contributed to, and proximately caused, the

violations described herein.

572. Although Conrad Truman has been acquitted, the actions of Defendants described herein

caused Conrad Truman to be unconstitutionally arrested, prosecuted, convicted, retried, and

confined for over 3 years and such actions were so egregious and were carried out in manner

that shocks the judicial conscience, that they constitute deprivations of a Constitutional

dimension.

573. Due to the actions of each Defendant, the entirety of Conrad Trumans criminal

proceedings, including both jury trials, lacked even the most basic fundamental fairness to a

degree that shocks the universal sense of justice.

574. Defendants violations of Plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment right as set forth above also

wrongfully deprived Plaintiff of his liberty without due process of law.

575. The acts of Defendants as set forth above were done with malice or reckless indifference

to the Plaintiffs federally protected rights, thus entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive

damages.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

UNLAWFUL POLICY, PRACTICE, AND/OR CUSTOM


42 U.S.C. 1983 Violation of the Fourth, Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution

(As against CITY and OCPD)

576. Plaintiff alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in the preceding

paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

577. Defendants acted under the color and pretense of Utah State law.

146
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 147 of 152

578. This cause of action is brought by Plaintiff against CITY and the OCPD for its practice,

custom and policy that lead and allowed DEFENDANT OFFICERS to deprive Plaintiff of his

constitutional rights as noted throughout this complaint within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 1983.

579. At all times relevant to this Complaint, the DEFENDANT OFFICERS were law

enforcement officers with the OCPD and were, therefore, acting under the direction and control

of that department and the Defendant CITY.

580. Upon information and belief, prior to September 30, 2012, CITY and OCPD developed

and maintained policies and customs using deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of

persons in the city which directly and materially contributed to, and proximately caused, the

violation of Plaintiffs rights stated here and throughout this Complaint.

581. Acting under the color of law, pursuant to official policy and practice, the CITY and

OCPD (through its law enforcement officers), knowingly, recklessly, and with deliberate

indifference and callous disregard for Plaintiffs rights, failed to train, instruct, supervise,

manage, control and/or discipline on a continuing basis DEFENDANT OFFICERS concerning

their duties to refrain from, among others acts:

a. Employing improper and unconstitutional searches and seizures;

b. Employing improper and unconstitutional interrogation techniques leading to

compelled, involuntary, unreliable and/or faulty statements, confessions, and/or admissions from

citizens;

c. Making false statements in police reports;

d. Altering police reports and obstructing justice;

e. Improper handling of evidence or property;

f. Fabricating or manufacturing evidence;

147
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 148 of 152

g. Making untruthful, inaccurate and incomplete reports of police activity;

h. Failing to fully disclose investigation to the prosecution and to the defense in

criminal proceedings;

i. Lieing and/or presenting knowingly false information, impressions, or evidence

under oath to a court or to members of a jury;

j. Presenting false statements, mischaracterization, and/or omissions in affidavits

for warrants, subpoenas, and charging documents, and failing to follow proper procedures in

obtaining and executing warrants and investigative subpoenas;

k. Otherwise depriving citizens and the Plaintiff of guaranteed constitutional and

statutory rights, privileges, and immunities.

582. On information and belief, CITY and the OCPD had knowledge, or had it diligently

exercised its duties to instruct, manage, supervise, control, train and discipline on a continuing

basis, should have had knowledge that the wrongs in this matter were about to be (or were being)

committed by its officers, including DEFENDANT OFFICERS.

583. Instead of properly training, instructing, supervising, controlling, and disciplining its

officers on a continuing basis, CITY and the OCPD continued the violations committed by the

DEFENDANT OFFICERS by filing criminal charges against Plaintiff, and thereafter, promoting

or otherwise rewarding and encouraging some of the DEFENDANT OFFICERS for their actions

and conduct in this case.

584. Said prosecution continued and Plaintiff faced continued incarceration and retrial even

after the DEFENDANT OFFICERS misdeeds were discovered and it was shown and

established, at times even conceded, that DEFENDANT OFFICERS in this case not only

violated Plaintiffs constitutional rights as detailed herein, but made fundamental errors in their

investigation; misrepresented their investigation; mishandled evidence; tainted witnesses and

148
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 149 of 152

witness testimony; made false, inaccurate and incomplete statements in police reports; altered

police reports; failed to disclose exculpatory evidence; fabricated and manufactured inculpatory

evidence; and pervasively lied under oath not only in affidavits, but in testimony before a court

of law on multiple occasions.

585. Upon information and belief, the CITY and OCPD was made aware of the commission of

the constitutional violations specifically committed against Plaintiff, and did nothing to stop or

prevent the continuing harm to Plaintiff.

586. Upon information and belief, the CITY and OCPD had the power and ability to prevent

and/or aid in the prevention of the commission of the constitutional violations specifically

committed against Plaintiff, and should have done so by reasonable diligence.

587. Upon information and belief, the CITY and OCPD failed or refused to do so, and thus,

the CITY and OCPD knowingly, recklessly or with deliberate indifference and/or callous

disregard of Plaintiffs rights violated their clearly established duties in this matter.

588. Upon information and belief, it was the policy and/or custom of the CITY and OCPD to

inadequately supervise and train its police officers, including the DEFENDANT OFFICERS,

thereby failing to adequately discourage further constitutional violations on the part of its police

force.

589. Upon information and belief, the CITY and OCPD have created an institutional culture

supporting and encouraging constitutional violations such as those alleged herein and, in so

doing, directly and materially contributed to, and proximately caused, the violations described

herein.

590. Upon information and belief, the CITY and OCPD did not provide appropriate in-service

training or retraining of officers who were known to engage in police misconduct.

591. Upon information and belief, the CITY and OCPD directly or indirectly, under color of

149
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 150 of 152

state law, approved or ratified the unlawful, deliberate, malicious, reckless, and/or wanton

conduct of police officers heretofore described.

592. As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional acts of Defendants CITY and

OCPD as set forth above, Plaintiff has suffered, among other harms: emotional distress; mental

anguish; substantial loss of liberty and continued incarceration for over 3 years; the stigma

and loss of reputation and good will associated with this arrest, false conviction and continued

prosecution; and the costs associated with defending, twice, against the false claims.

593. The acts of Defendants as set forth above were done with malice or reckless indifference

to the Plaintiffs constitutionally protected rights, thus entitling Plaintiff an award of punitive

damages.

DAMAGES

594. As a direct and proximate result of the above and foregoing acts by the Defendants,

Plaintiff has suffered injuries and damages, including but not limited to:

a. Violations of Plaintiffs constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution to be free from unreasonable search and seizure

of his person and effects;

b. Violations of Plaintiffs constitutional rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution against compelled and involuntary self-

incrimination;

c. Violations of Plaintiffs constitutional rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution to fair and Due Process before life and liberty are

taken;

d. Loss of personal liberty and sustained incarceration of an innocent man;

e. Loss and damage to personal property as proven at trial;

150
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 151 of 152

f. Loss of reputation and good will;

g. Emotional and sustained trauma suffered not only as the proximate result of his

treatment by law enforcement in the moments, hours, days, and months following his wifes

traumatic death, but as the proximate result of the prosecution and wrongful incarceration of an

innocent man;

h. Loss of employment and wages and the impairment of future employment;

i. As the proximate result of the Defendants illegal conduct in this matter, Plaintiff

incurred significant attorneys fees and costs associated with defense at first trial, in an amount

to be proven at trial;

j. As the proximate result of the Defendants illegal conduct in this matter, Plaintiff

incurred significant attorneys fees and costs associated with further investigation, the motion for

new trial proceedings, and a second trial, in an amount to be proven at trial.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff requests a jury trial on all issues in this case.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands Judgment against Defendants as follows:

1. Actual economic damages as established at trial;

2. Compensatory damages, including, but not limited to, those for past and future

pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses, emotional distress, suffering, loss of reputation,

humiliation, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other non pecuniary

losses;

3. Special damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

4. Punitive damages for all claims allowed by law in an amount to be determined at

trial;

151
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 152 of 152

5. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the highest lawful rate;

6. Attorney's fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988; and

7. Any other relief this Court deems just and proper, to include but not be limited to

declaratory judgment and/or injunctive relief, barring ALL Defendants, including Orem City,

OCPD, and their officers, agents, and/or employees from similar misconduct in the future.

DATED this 12th day of July, 2017.

/s/ Lincoln Hobbs


/s/ Sarah Orme
______________________
LINCOLN HOBBS
SARAH ORME
HOBBS & OLSON | CARPENTER HAZLEWOOD

Attorneys for Plaintiff Conrad Truman

K:\AMT\P\6123.wpd

152
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2-1 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 8
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2-1 Filed 07/12/17 Page 2 of 8
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2-1 Filed 07/12/17 Page 3 of 8
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2-1 Filed 07/12/17 Page 4 of 8
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2-1 Filed 07/12/17 Page 5 of 8
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2-1 Filed 07/12/17 Page 6 of 8
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2-1 Filed 07/12/17 Page 7 of 8
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2-1 Filed 07/12/17 Page 8 of 8
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2-2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2-2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2-3 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 15
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2-3 Filed 07/12/17 Page 2 of 15
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2-3 Filed 07/12/17 Page 3 of 15
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2-3 Filed 07/12/17 Page 4 of 15
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2-3 Filed 07/12/17 Page 5 of 15
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2-3 Filed 07/12/17 Page 6 of 15
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2-3 Filed 07/12/17 Page 7 of 15
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2-3 Filed 07/12/17 Page 8 of 15
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2-3 Filed 07/12/17 Page 9 of 15
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2-3 Filed 07/12/17 Page 10 of 15
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2-3 Filed 07/12/17 Page 11 of 15
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2-3 Filed 07/12/17 Page 12 of 15
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2-3 Filed 07/12/17 Page 13 of 15
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2-3 Filed 07/12/17 Page 14 of 15
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2-3 Filed 07/12/17 Page 15 of 15
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2-4 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 9
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2-4 Filed 07/12/17 Page 2 of 9
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2-4 Filed 07/12/17 Page 3 of 9
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2-4 Filed 07/12/17 Page 4 of 9
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2-4 Filed 07/12/17 Page 5 of 9
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2-4 Filed 07/12/17 Page 6 of 9
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2-4 Filed 07/12/17 Page 7 of 9
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2-4 Filed 07/12/17 Page 8 of 9
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2-4 Filed 07/12/17 Page 9 of 9
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2-5 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 7
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2-5 Filed 07/12/17 Page 2 of 7
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2-5 Filed 07/12/17 Page 3 of 7
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2-5 Filed 07/12/17 Page 4 of 7
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2-5 Filed 07/12/17 Page 5 of 7
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2-5 Filed 07/12/17 Page 6 of 7
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2-5 Filed 07/12/17 Page 7 of 7
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2-6 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2-6 Filed 07/12/17 Page 2 of 2