Mortensen lawsuit
-
Upload
ben-winslow -
Category
Documents
-
view
234 -
download
0
Transcript of Mortensen lawsuit
-
8/3/2019 Mortensen lawsuit
1/46
ROBERT B. SYKES (#3180)[email protected]
ALYSON E. CARTER (#9886)[email protected]
ROBERT B. SYKES & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
311 South State Street, Suite 240Salt Lake City, Utah 84111Telephone (801) 533-0222Facsimile (801) 533-8081
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
ROGER KAY MORTENSEN, andPAM MORTENSEN,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
DET. JOSH CHAPPELL; SGT.MATT HIGLEY; DET. ERIKKNUTZEN; LT. MIKE BROWER,THE UTAH COUNTY SHERIFFSOFFICE; TIM TAYLOR and JOHNNIELSEN, Prosecutors, UtahCounty Attorneys Office; and
JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-20,
Defendants.
)))))))))))))))
))))
COMPLAINT
and
JURY DEMAND
Civil No. _______________
Judge ___________________
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 1 of 46
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected] -
8/3/2019 Mortensen lawsuit
2/46
-
8/3/2019 Mortensen lawsuit
3/46
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This action arises under the United States Constitution and
federal law, particularly under the provisions of the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the Constitution of the United States, and 42 U.S.C. 1983
and 1988.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Plaintiffs are seeking damages under federal law pursuant to the
claims for relief specified below, in amounts to be proved at trial.
5. This Court has authority to award costs and attorney fees
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988.
6. This Court also has jurisdiction over any pendent State claims
Plaintiffs may wish to bring, or have brought, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367.
-3-
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 3 of 46
-
8/3/2019 Mortensen lawsuit
4/46
PARTIES
7. Plaintiff Roger Kay MORTENSEN, husband of Pam
Mortensen and son of Kay Mortensen, deceased, is a citizen of the United States
of America and a resident of Utah County, State of Utah.
8. PlaintiffPam MORTENSEN, wife of Roger Mortensen and
daughter-in-law of Kay Mortensen, deceased, is a citizen of the United States of
America and a resident of Utah County, State of Utah.
9. Defendant Det. Josh CHAPPELL, at all times relevant herein,
was a Detective employed by the Utah County Sheriffs Office (UCSO), a
governmental entity operating under the laws and statutes of the State of Utah.
He was lead investigator into the murder of Kay Mortensen for the UCSO.
10. Defendant Det. Matt HIGLEY, at all times relevant herein,
was a Detective or Deputy employed by the Utah County Sheriffs Office, a
governmental entity operating under the laws and statutes of the State of Utah.
11. Defendant Det. Erik KNUTZEN, at all times relevant herein,
was a Detective or Deputy employed by the Utah County Sheriffs Office, a
governmental entity operating under the laws and statutes of the State of Utah.
KNUTZEN was also the Case Sergeant assigned to the murder investigation by
the UCSO.
-4-
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 4 of 46
-
8/3/2019 Mortensen lawsuit
5/46
12. Defendant Lt. Mike BROWER, at all times relevant herein,
was a Lieutenant employed by the UCSO, and was the lieutenant over the
investigation division. Lt. Brower supervised the entire murder investigation and
those working on it, including CHAPPELL and KNUTZEN. Browers division
was responsible for the investigation. He responded to the crime scene and
kind of oversaw efforts, investigative process with regarding interviews with
suspects, with witnesses. Also involved with warrants that had been executed. It
was kind of overseeing the case. Brower Testimony, Grand Jury Day 1
(hereinafter, GJD-1), 85:12-19.
13. Defendant John J. NIELSEN, 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. NIELSEN
served as both an investigator in the underlying murder investigation, as a witness
before the Grand Jury, and as an attorney for the prosecution at the Grand Jury
proceeding.
14. Defendant Timothy L. TAYLOR, 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. TAYLOR
served as both an investigator in the underlying murder investigation, as a witness
-5-
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 5 of 46
-
8/3/2019 Mortensen lawsuit
6/46
before the Grand Jury, and as an attorney for the prosecution at the Grand Jury
proceeding.
15. This action is brought against Defendants Chappell, Higley,
Knutzen, Brower, Nielsen, Taylor, and John and Jane Does 1-20 in both their
individual and official capacities. Their authority to act was derived from Utah
State law and/or the commands and directives of their superiors. All of the acts
of the individuals and entities listed herein were performed under color of the
laws, statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs, and usages of the State
of Utah, and each said individual is a person liable under 42 U.S.C. 1983.
Defendants were, at all relevant times, employees of the Utah County Sheriffs
Office, Utah County Attorneys Office, or Payson City Utah Police Department,
and were operating under the corporate powers of said agencies.
16. Plaintiffs will serve notice of their pendent state claims against
the Defendants pursuant to Utah law. These claims are present or will be
amended into this Complaint at a later time. However, Plaintiffs deny that notice
of such state claims is required of any of the current claims in this Complaint since
all current claims deal with constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. 1983, and
state law notice of such claims is not required.
-6-
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 6 of 46
-
8/3/2019 Mortensen lawsuit
7/46
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
17. On November 16, 2009, on or about 6:00 p.m., Roger and Pam
Mortensen drove to Kay Mortensens home in Payson Canyon for a visit.
18. As they arrived, they noticed an unfamiliar car parked near the
residence. Roger and/or Pam later described this car as a small, compact, hatch-
back type car, dark in color, or dark blue.
19. Roger and Pam were greeted at the door by two unknown males
who took them hostage at gunpoint.
20. Roger and Pam were directed to the sunken living room where
their hands and feet were tied with zip ties.
21. A brief time after the suspects left, Pam and Roger were able to
free themselves from the zip ties.
22. Immediately upon freeing themselves, at about 7:45 p.m. on the
same day, Pam called 911. At the same time, Roger went upstairs and discovered
that his father, Kay, had been murdered. The later autopsy showed that his throat
had been cut several times, and that he had a stab wound in his back.
23. Several police officers from different agencies, including
deputies and detectives from the Utah Sheriffs Office, responded to the area to
assist and investigate.
-7-
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 7 of 46
-
8/3/2019 Mortensen lawsuit
8/46
24. The interior of the residence did not appear to have been
disturbed, but Kay had an underground bunker on his property, and dozens of
expensive guns had been stolen from the bunker.
DESCRIPTIONS OF THE SUSPECTS
25. False & Misleading Statements. Defendants made multiple
false and misleading statements to the Grand Jury that misrepresented or
concealed important exculpatory facts regarding Rogers and Pams description of
the suspects. For example, Roger and Pam Mortensen were characterized as
unable to give any description of the suspects who killed Kay Mortensen. The
following constitute some examples:
a. CHAPPELL [vague . . . there was nothing]:
Q. How did Pam describe to you . . . the suspects that allegedly werethere?A. Her description was veryvague. . . . unable to give an age . . . .But you know, when it came to suspect description, . . . there wasnothing. [W]e had a whole team of investigators and police officersthat were waiting for some, some detailed description as to thesuspects and to the vehicle, and we were wanting to get thatinformation out to them so it would give us some direction,somewhere to go.
GJD-2, 24:4-25:10 [emphasis and double emphasis added; irrelevant information
omitted].
-8-
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 8 of 46
-
8/3/2019 Mortensen lawsuit
9/46
b. BROWER [couldnt give us any descriptions]: Lt. Mike
Brower testified:
She couldnt remember what they looked like, other than they wereyoung, clean cut, no hats. Couldnt give us any descriptions. Said shecouldnt do it. . . . Vague, vague descriptions. Roger was thesame way.
GJD-1, 107:10-18 (emphasis and double emphasis added).
26. The Truth. The UCSO Incident Report contains several places
where a very good description of the suspects was given by Roger and/or Pam.
These include:
a. RIDING Report. Deputy Riding of the UCSO reported the
following description by the Mortensens (both of them):
I then asked the two VICTIMS/WITNESSES, later to be identified
as Roger and Pamela Mortensen, to give me a description of thesuspects. They described them as two white males, 20-25 years old,
5'8", 160 lbs, with short dark hair. The hair appeared to bedark likeit was colored or sprayed on. They had a mustache, possibly agotee,and wearing levis [sic]. They stated that they both looked the same. . . .
UCSO, p.46 (emphasis and double emphasis added).
b. CHAPPELL & KNUTZEN Interview. Det. Chappell
summarized Rogers description of the suspects:
Roger describes the suspects as looking like each other, with shortblack hair. It appeared that the suspectshair was either painted onor dye [sic]. These were white guys and Their language was perfect.
-9-
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 9 of 46
-
8/3/2019 Mortensen lawsuit
10/46
Both suspects were20-25 years old. The suspects were wearing Levis[sic] and Roger was unable to give any type of shirt description. Thesuspects were wearing Blue fuzzy gloves. . . . Later Roger describesthe suspects as being his same build, which is 5' 09" tall andapproximately160-165 lbs.
UCSO, p.183, Interview of Roger Mortensen by Dets. Knutzen and Chappell at
1:05 a.m. on 11/17/09 (emphasis and double emphasis added).
c. SCOTT interview of William Lemieux. Deputy Jody Scott
interviewed a friend of Rogers, one William Lemieux, on 11/18/09. He records:
Mr. Lemieux said Roger told him that . . . the suspects were . . .Rogers size, 150 to 165 lbs., and that they were probably a little bitbigger than Mr . Lemieux, within an inch or so and a little bit betterbuilt than Mr. Lemieux, their hair was shorter than Rogers, that itwasnt naturalblack hair, that it waspainted on or recently dyed, andthat they were really clean cut.
UCSO, p.143 (emphasis added).
d. SCOTT Interview of Mr. Quist. Deputy Scott interviewed
a Mr. Quist and recorded the following:
Mr. Quist said Roger further described the suspects as being2 whitemales in theirearly to mid-20s, about5' 9", skinny, withsprayed on
hair. . . .
UCSO, p.51 (emphasis added).
e. SCOTT Interview of Citizen Informants. Det. Scotts
report, under the title Suspect at Mountain View Hospital Identified, states that
on 2/16/10 he met with two citizen informants, both of whom were present at
-10-
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 10 of 46
-
8/3/2019 Mortensen lawsuit
11/46
Mountain View Hospital on 11/16/09 at 21:49 hours when the suspicious male
began talking to them about the homicide regarding this case. UCSO, p.53.
They gave the following description:
The male described the suspect mentioned as being a white male,about5'10", 150-175 lbs., with agoatee that was reddish brown incolor, and blue eyes, wearing a black jacket, light bluejeans, and ablack beanie. . . . The male informant recalled the suspicious maleasking them if someone had come into the hospital with their throatsliced, saying someone had killed a guy in Payson Canyon by cuttinga guys throat, and the suspect laughed about the incident, and spoke
to them about it with a happy look on his face .
UCSO, p.153 (emphasis added). This description, of who later turned out to be
Trent Oryall, fits Rogers description of the two perpetrators almost exactly
(height, weight, skin color, facial hair or goatee, possibly hair color, and levis).
This sighting occurred just hours after the murder and apparently before the
murder was made public, so these were highly exculpatory facts.
TRENT ORYALL THE MAN AT THE HOSPITAL
27. False & Misleading Statements. Defendants made several
false and misleading statements to the Grand Jury that misrepresented or
concealed important exculpatory facts regarding other suspects in the
investigation, particularlyTrent Oryall. For example, Defendants misled the
Grand Jury and falsified exculpatory evidence regarding the exact identity and
description of the man, Trent Oryall,who entered the Mountain View Hospital
-11-
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 11 of 46
-
8/3/2019 Mortensen lawsuit
12/46
in Payson just hours after the murder of Kay Mortensen, and asked witnesses if
a person had been brought in who had their throat cut. UCSO, p.157. See also
Fact 26(e), above. The following constitute some examples of such false and
misleading testimony that omits, falsifies, and/or conceals Oryalls identity and
other exculpatory facts:
a. CHAPPELL [unable to identify the person]. As lead
investigator, Chappell clearly knew that the male individual had in fact been
identified as Trent Oryall, but falsely claimed otherwise:
Q. And finally, could you talk -- could you tell the jury about whathappened with a man at the local hospital that night, the night of themurder? A. Yeah, the night of the murder, theres a male individual thatcomes into Mountain View Hospital down in Payson. . . . . Anyway, he comes into that, that small corridor area and has a
conversation with two individuals that are at the vending machines,appeared to be at the vending machines.
* * * *Q. What did these individuals describe that conversation as? A. You know, I wasn't involved with that conversation, so I don'tknow the exact details of it. I think they were also shown the videoand maybe even shown to see if they knew who this person was. Butbased on what I remember, they don't -- they were never able toidentify the person that was in the video.
Q. Do you recall what he asked them?A. I dont.
Det. Chappell testimony, GJD-2, 42:24-43:23, (emphasis and double emphasis
added).
-12-
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 12 of 46
-
8/3/2019 Mortensen lawsuit
13/46
b. HIGLEY [never found out who that was]. Higley also
falsely claimed that Oryalls identity had never been discovered:
Q. . . . there is some information provided to the jury that there wasa man who went to the hospital in Payson A. Correct. I did see that.Q. -- the night of the homicide. Could you explain to the jury whatthat situation was and how your investigation proceeded on thatpoint? A. Sure. We were able to obtain some video surveillance fromMountain View Hospital, and you can see an individual walking in.There's like a double door there. And in that double door, theres two,
a male and a female standing in there. And the individual that walksin, makes a cutting motion, a slashing motion across his neck. Andthen shortly thereafter walks further into the hospital.
* * * *Q. And what was the conversation that took place?A. I believe the individual asked if anybody had come in with a slitthroat?
Q. And do you know about what time this took place?* * * *
A. I dont remember. I dont remember that time.Q. And what did you do to try to follow up on that?A. I believe it was Detective Adams, Zach Adams was able to makecontact with those two individuals that were inside the hospital andtalked with them, and they attempted to find out who that individualwas that walked in and did the cutting motion. ButI dont believethey found who that was.
Q. And is the video very clear? Can you see?A. Oh, yes, it's very clear.
* * * *Q. All right. Sodifficult to identify this person?A. Yes.Q. And you werent able to track him down --A. No, I dont believe so.
GJD-2, 77:8-79:3 (emphasis and double emphasis added).
-13-
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 13 of 46
-
8/3/2019 Mortensen lawsuit
14/46
28. The Truth. The UCSO Incident Reports contain many
accounts of highly exculpatory interviews with at least seven different people, all
of whom positively identified the man at the hospital as Trent ORYALL, and who
provided other exculpatory facts, such as those in 26(e) above, that were
misrepresented or concealed from the Grand Jury. Examples of such reports, in
addition to 26(e), are as follows:
a. SCOTT Interviews. Det. Jody Scott of UCSO, Investigations
Division, was assigned on the day of the murder, 11/16/09, to assist with the
investigation of the homicide of Kay Mortensen. He interviewed around two
dozen people, in the presence of other officers. His detailed report of the
interviews spans nearly 40 pages of the 205-page investigation report. See UCSO,
pps.131-168. There are multiple references in this report to exculpatory
interviews that point to Trent Oryall as a prime suspect, and as the man at the
hospital referred to above. The following constitute some of those interviews:
b. SCOTT Interview of Thomas Nixon. Det. Scott interviewed
Thomas Nixon several times and recorded the following:
I had spoken with Thomas Nixon several times throughout thisinvestigation, and showed him the video of the suspect at MountainView Hospital, as mentioned later in this report, at which time hetold me he was 75% sure it was Trent Oryall in the video. Mr.Nixon told me he has associated with Mr. Oryall for several monthsand is familiar with Mr. Oryalls looks and mannerisms, which is why
-14-
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 14 of 46
-
8/3/2019 Mortensen lawsuit
15/46
he is confident it is Mr. Oryall. Mr. Nixon went on to tell me thatone time while he was at the bar with Mr. Oryall, that Mr. Oryallstarted talking to him about a white supremacist gang he wasconnected to. Mr. Nixon said Mr. Oryall also talked about robbing
and burglarizing equipment from homes and cars.
UCSO, p.135 (emphasis and double emphasis added).
c. SCOTT Interview of Becky Olsen, Nurse at MVH. Det.
Scott interviewed Nurse Becky Olsenat Mountain View Hospital on 11/18/09 and
recounted the following about that interview:
Becky Olsen told us that she is a nurse for Mountain View Hospitalin Payson, UT., and that she had the opportunity to view a hospitalsurveillance tape of an unidentified suspicious male person who cameinto the hospital on 11-16-09, at approximately 2149 hoursinquiring of the staff if a person had been brought in who had theirthroat cut. Becky told us that she is very familiar with Trent Oryall,as Trents mother Deann Oryall also works at the hospital, withwhom she has seen Trent often visit, as well as the fact that Trent
used to be married to her niece Jennifer Edwards. Becky said shebelieved due to the mannerisms and gestures of the person on thetape, that the person was most likely Trent Oryall. Becky indicatedthatseveral other people at the hospital familiar with Trent,also feltthis way including Tobias Peterson, and that Thomas Thornton whoalso works at the hospital actually spoke with the unidentifiedsuspicious male on the date in question.
UCSO, p.156-7 (emphasis and double emphasis added).
d. SCOTT Interview of Citizen Informants. Det. Scotts
report, under the title Suspect at Mountain View Hospital Identified, states that
on 2/16/10 he met with two citizen informants, both of whom were present at
-15-
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 15 of 46
-
8/3/2019 Mortensen lawsuit
16/46
Mountain View Hospital on 11/16/09 at 21:49 hours when the suspicious male
began talking to them about the homicide regarding this case. UCSO, p.53.
Scott recorded the following account:
The female confidential citizen informant . . . described the male....wearing . . . a black beanie cap that had a symbol on it. . . .I showedthe female informant a photo of a black beanie confiscated during thisinvestigation which isknown to belong to Trent Oryall. The beaniehas a West Coast Choppers insignia on it showing a red cross,outlined in white, and the word Choppers spelled out over the crossin black lettering. When the female informant saw the beanie she
instantly told meshe was 100 percent sure the suspect in the videomentioned was wearing the same exact looking beanie. I also showedthe female informant 6 individual photos, one of which was ofTrentOryall. The informant then said looking and pointing to Mr. Oryallsphoto and the beanie, if you put that beanie on that person,I am 90
percent sure he is the person that spoke to my boyfriend and I,referring to the day, person and place in question.
UCSO, p.153 (emphasis and double emphasis added).
e. KNAPP Interview of Tobias Peterson. Det. Knapp of UCSO
interviewed another witness at Mountain View Hospital about Trent Oryall:
On November 18, 2009, I met with Tobias Peterson . . . Toby saidthat he works at the Mountain View Hospital with Trent Oryallsmother. Toby works in building maintenance. Toby said that whenhe got to work, he heard of the video surveillance I had taken the
night of November 16th. Toby watched the video on November 18th
and felt that the unidentified person in the surveillance video was
Trent Oryall.
UCSO, p.77 (emphasis and double emphasis added).
-16-
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 16 of 46
-
8/3/2019 Mortensen lawsuit
17/46
f. STOUT Interview of Becky Olsen. Det. Stout of UCSO met
with and interviewed Becky Olsen, Jayeleen Edwards, and one Kidrick,
apparently on 11/19/09, three days after the murder. Stout recounted the
following in his report:
Becky had contacted us, as there was a video of a male who hadwalked into the Mountain View Hospital on November 16, 2009,prior to the media release of the homicide, and had inquired aboutsomeone being brought in with a slit throat. Becky had seen the video
and had identified the male was Trent Oryall. . . . .
In addition, a guy who worked with Becky, named Toby, had alsoidentified the male as Trent Oryall. Trents mother also works at thehospital. Trent had been in the hospital earlier that day to visit hismother, and Trent stopped by and talked with Toby. Trent had toldToby that he had some guns for sale . . . Becky had called to report
that she was certain the guy in the video was Trent Oryall.
UCSO, p.47 (emphasis and double emphasis added). Guns were stolen from the
Mortensen home by the perpetrators on 11/16/09. UCSO, p.113. Thus, Trent
Oryall, who matches the description given by Pam and Roger, is offering guns
for sale within hours of the slit throat in Payson Canyon, even before news of
the murder was released to the media. These exculpatory facts were concealed
and misrepresented to the Grand Jury by the UCSO.
g. Anonymous Tips Regarding Oryalls Involvement. There
were two separate anonymous tips that Trent Oryall was involved in the murder
-17-
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 17 of 46
-
8/3/2019 Mortensen lawsuit
18/46
of Kay Mortensen, which exculpatory facts were not disclosed to the Grand Jury.
UCSO, p.14.
h. CHAPPELL Grand Jury Testimony. Chappell was asked
about Trent Oryall, Allen Russell, Calvin Sharp, and Cami Bills. He stated that
one Jennifer Edwards had contacted the Sheriffs Office, and that Edwards said
that these people might possibly be involved in the homicide of Kay Mortensen.
GJD-2, 38:23-39:11. Chappell told the Grand Jury that these people had been
ruled . . . out as suspects. GJD-2, 39:11. The following testimony then
occurred:
Q. Did these individuals names come up again A. No.Q. when you interviewed other people?A. No.
GJD-2, 39:21-24 (emphasis added). This was a falsehood. TRENT ORYALLS
name, as well as others, came up many times during the interviews of other
potential witnesses, and ORYALL was positively identified as the person who had
come into the hospital on the night of the murder. See 28(a)-28(f).
DESCRIPTION OF THE VEHICLES
29. False and Misleading Statements. Various deputies testified
falsely or in a misleading manner, claiming that the Mortensens failed to give a
vehicle description:
-18-
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 18 of 46
-
8/3/2019 Mortensen lawsuit
19/46
a. CHAPPELL Grand Jury Testimony: But you know, when
it came to suspect description, vehicle description . . . there was nothing. GJD-2,
24:25-25:1 (emphasis added). He also testified, There was no shedidnt give
a color, there was no body style. Nothing. Nothing like that. GJD-2, 24:8-9
(emphasis added).
30. The Truth. Detailed descriptions of the vehicle were given:
a. CHAPPELL & KNUTZEN Interview of Roger Mortensen:
1:13:30. Roger describes the suspect vehicle as being a bright blueand compares the color to the new bright blue color Dodge is using forthe new diesel trucks. According to Roger, the vehicle was a
hatchback style vehicle, possibly aHonda Civic or a Mazda 3.
UCSO, p.184, Interview of Roger Mortensen by Knutzen and Chappell (emphasis
and double emphasis added).
b. RIDING Report. Deputy Ridings narrative from 11/17/09
provides:
The vehicle was described as a DARK BLUE smaller car, like ahatchback. This was given to dispatch for an update.
Riding Supplemental Narrative, UCSO p.46 (emphasis added).
c. SCOTT Report. The male citizen informant at Mountain
View Hospital informed Det. Scott that the man later identified asTrent Oryall
got into a vehicle described as follows:
-19-
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 19 of 46
-
8/3/2019 Mortensen lawsuit
20/46
The informant said he saw the suspect leave the hospital in a newerpossibly 2007, baby blue colored, 4 door, hatchback, with anothermale which the informant was unable to describe. The informant saidthe car was most likely a Toyota Prius, or could possibly be a Mazda
3 . . .
UCSO, p.154 (emphasis and double emphasis added).
WRITTEN STATEMENTS
31. False and Misleading Statements. Various deputies or
investigators testified falsely or in a misleading manner, that the Mortensens
refused to provide written statements:
a. Ofc. Mike DOYL Testimony. Payson officer Doyl testified
as follows:
Q. Okay. Now I hear at some point you ask both Pam and Rogerto make written statements. Did they ever provide you with written
statements as to what happened? A. No, they did not. . . .Q. But both of themrefused? A. Yes,they did refuse.
GJD-1, 72:16-25 (emphasis added).
32. The Truth. Shortly after the police and other officers began
to arrive in response to Pams 911 call, Roger and Pam were asked to provide
written statements while the details of the ordeal were fresh in their minds. Roger
did not really refuse to provide such a statement, but said that he would rather
talk to someone about it. UCSO, p.97. Pam did not refuse to give a written
-20-
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 20 of 46
-
8/3/2019 Mortensen lawsuit
21/46
statement either, but instead expressed skepticism that she would be able to
explain much about the perpetrators. UCSO, p.97. She said, We were told not
to look at them, and we didnt. UCSO, p.97.
ROGER AND PAMS FINANCIAL STATE
33. False and Misleading Statements. Defendants made false
and misleading statements to the Grand Jury that Pam and Roger were in financial
trouble, leading the Grand Jury to believe they had financial motive to murder
Kay Mortensen. The following constitute some examples:
a. Sgt. HIGLEY testified falsely as follows:
Q. Approximately how many collection type letters did you findwould you estimate?A. There were several stacks, several stacks.Q. When you say stacks
A. Stacks like this.Q. you are makingeight or 9-inch motion with your hand there?A large stack.A. Large stack.
* * * *Q. So based upon your observations of those apparently unpaiddebts, what did you, what conclusions did you make about theirfinancial state? A. I dont think it was very good.That they were hurting for
money.
GJD-2, 80:19-81:22 (emphasis added).
b. Sgt. HIGLEY testified further regarding Plaintiffs mortgage:
-21-
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 21 of 46
-
8/3/2019 Mortensen lawsuit
22/46
Q. Just describe for the jury just briefly how these documentsrelated to paying the mortgage, just what they are. A. I found - - I dont know how your mortgage paymentsare, ifyou have one, but some of them, some mortgage companiessend outlike a little check register book that you -- tellsyou how much youowe when you owe it and you send that in withyour house payment.Found those the last house payment, Julyswas still in there. So it
didn't appear they had made a house payment. Their last housepayment would have been June. It was July, the last register that wasin there.
GJD-2, 81:8-81:17 (emphasis and double emphasis added).
34. The Truth. Roger and Pam had three or four collection
notices at their house, altogether totaling between $3,000-$8,000, including
minimal medical and dental bills. They were not behind in their mortgage
payments.
35. Pam and Rogers bank records had been subpoenaed. The
investigators and prosecutors knew, or should have known, that Roger and Pam
were not behind on their mortgage, nor was their financial situation particularly
dire or calamitous, as the grand jury was led to believe.
ROGER AND PAM REACTED INAPPROPRIATELY
36. A major, pervasive theme of Prosecutor Nielsens presentation
to the grand jury was opinion evidence from the various investigators and other
witnesses stating that after Kays murder, Roger and Pam were very unemotional
-22-
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 22 of 46
-
8/3/2019 Mortensen lawsuit
23/46
under the circumstances, very cold in their demeanor, very calm, showing no
emotion whatsoever, etc.
37. False and Misleading Statements. The prosecution and
witnesses led the Grand Jury to falsely believe that Roger and Pam did not act the
way they would expect a son and daughter-in-law to act when they discovered
their father had been killed. The Grand Jury was led to believe that their reactions
were evidence of their guilt. For example:
a. Sgt. BUFTON testified:
Q. Did you speak with Roger and Pam?A. I did.Q. What was their demeanor as you spoke with them?A. Very calm. Again I was there within minutes of the 911 call,
very calm, no emotion whatsoever.
GJD-2, 65:16-20 (emphasis added).
b. Ofr. DOYL testified:
Q. Why don't you go ahead and describe the demeanor that youobserved first with -- well, with regards to both Pam and Roger.
A. The demeanor -- their demeanor was very confusing to me. Itwasdefinitely not that of someone that I would how someonewould act normally in the circumstances that they had just
described, that they had just gone through. I didn't see anyemotion in them at all . There were no tears from either one ofthem. No, you know, become hysterical, upset that thefatherhad passed way....Just did not seem emotional whatsoever overwhat had happened.
GJD-1, 73:1-13 (emphasis added, irrelevant portions removed).
-23-
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 23 of 46
-
8/3/2019 Mortensen lawsuit
24/46
38. The Truth. Sgt. Higley interviewed Darla Mortensen, Kays
wife, on the evening of the murder. Darla informed Higley that Roger had
suffered trauma to his brain and that he forgets things when he is under stress.
UCSO, p.59. The prosecution never informed the Grand Jury that brain-injured
people often act without emotion or filter.
a. Sgt. KNUTZEN conducted an extensive interview of Roger on
the evening of the murder. At one point, Roger informed Knutzen, I have serious
brain trauma, I have 'impulsiveness,' and I have frontal lobe injury. UCSO, p.88.
b. Det. SCOTT interviewed William Lemieux a number of times.
Mr. Lemieux is a friend of Rogers. During an interview on February 11, 2010,
Mr. Lemieux told Det. Scott that Roger has short term memory loss from a brain
injury he suffered, that he doesnt rationalize things. . . . UCSO, p.146.
c. Rogers serious brain injury, which clearly affected his
demeanor, memory, and other responses to this incident, was withheld from the
grand jury. Rogers ATV accident was mentioned in passing twice, but the
permanent brain injury that resulted from this accident was never referenced. For
example, in answer to a jurors question, Darla Mortensen, Kays wife, stated,
...he had physical and mental problems. Hed been in a real bad ATV accident
and had about died. GJD-1, 215:13-15.
-24-
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 24 of 46
-
8/3/2019 Mortensen lawsuit
25/46
d. In addition to Rogers brain injury, the prosecution failed to
present the fact that Pam had literally defecated in her pants because she was so
scared. UCSO, p.112 (Pam describes using the bathroom).
FACTS RELATING TO THE PROSECUTORS
39. Both prosecutors functioned at various times during the Grand
Jury proceeding as witnesses making statements of fact to be used as evidence by
the Grand Jury. They alsoprovided legal advice to the officers, and functioned as
co-investigators of the facts with the officers. They may have also providedfalse
information to the press.
40. Prosecutor Nielsen examined Joshua Chappell on Grand Jury
Day 2. He posed questions about the man who came to the hospital and asked
whether a patient had come in with his throat slit. GJD-2, 43. Chappell falsely
claimed not to know the name of the person, claiming that he was never
identified, and Nielsen knew that statement to be false. Id. See also 27(a). In
that context, after the end ofChappells false testimony, Prosecutor Nielsen
made this factual statement on the record to the Grand Jury:
Mr. Nielsen: I was trying to get it in with Detective Chappell,but just for the jurys information, again offered in the spirit ofdisclosure, there was the police had information that an individual
came to the hospital that night close to the time that the call came in
and asked the people in the hospital if the man had been brought in
whose throat was cut. Thats all, Your Honor.
-25-
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 25 of 46
-
8/3/2019 Mortensen lawsuit
26/46
GJD-2, 50:18-25 (emphasis added). At that point, the Court took a recess. So,
from Chappells testimony, the jury was left with the false impression that no one
ever identified the man at the hospital as Trent Oryall, or connected him to the
murder. Mr. Nielsen then arose and confirmed this false impression with his
testimony, knowing it to be false, while claiming to offer the false statement in
the spirit of full disclosure. Prosecutor Nielsen was functioning as a witness
when he made the above statement of fact, which he intended to be considered
by the Grand Jury as evidence (disclosure), and which he intended to confirm
Chappells false testimony (I was trying to get it in with Detective Chappell).
41. In making the aforementioned statement, Prosecutor Nielsen
omitted the key fact in this spirit of disclosure that the person who came to the
hospital that night was, in fact, Trent Oryall. He omitted that other witnesses
had independently identified Oryall as having something to do with the murder
of Kay Mortensen, as well as having had guns to sell the very night of the murder,
when guns had been stolen during the murder. Nielsen further omitted from his
disclosure that on the night of Kays murder, Oryall had been seen driving a car
similar to what Pam and Roger had described. Prosecutor Nielsen thus factually
reconfirmed for the Grand Jury Chappells earlier false impression, i.e., that the
-26-
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 26 of 46
-
8/3/2019 Mortensen lawsuit
27/46
man at the hospital was never identified, which was at the very least a falsehood
by omission.
42. At the end of Grand Jury Day 2, one of the Grand Jurors asked
Prosecutor Taylor, So, can we see Pam and Roger? GJD-2, 185:25. Prosecutor
Taylor also took the role of witness when he responded by leaving a false
impression that Roger and Pam probably would not want to be there and would
not say anything anyway. He left another factually false impression that I dont
know what they will say, when he had considerable evidence that they would
controvert much of the false evidence presented. He stated:
They . . . one of the admonitions according to the statute is if aperson is a subject to the criminal to the Grand Jury, they have aright not to answer any questions. And so they you have heard thatthey have, have an attorney at this point. I dont know what they
would say. We can go ahead and stop this at this point, issue asubpoena to them, come back tomorrow or whenever we get thesubpoena served, and have them put on the stand and see what theywill say. I dont know what they will say.
GJD-2, 186:1-10 (emphasis added).
FAILURE TO FULLY INVESTIGATE
43. Before the Defendants even had a chance to investigate the
bomb shelter in the back yard, or follow up on any other leads, officers on the
scene had already indicated to one another that Plaintiffs were likely the
murderers and their story was not being taken seriously. Transcript of Interview
-27-
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 27 of 46
-
8/3/2019 Mortensen lawsuit
28/46
between the Mortensens and the officers/deputies, 11/16/09 (Transcript), lines
1071-1124.
44. Defendants discussed among themselves their skepticism of
Plaintiffs reports and explanations:
Unidentified Officer: Is it weird that [ ] the bomb shelters beenbreached, its probably heavily armed. Transcript, l.1115.Deputy Dan Thomas: The thing is though, its like, why, why doyou take the effort, if you know youre gonna kill him anyways, [ ]why do you make it so that its not a big mess and its in the bathtub,
cause they dont want to make it a mess; Transcript, l.1116-1118.Deputy Craig Martinez: Theyre full of shit, thats my bet.Transcript, l.1121.Deputy Craig Martinez: I just think itsbullshit. Transcript, l.1123.Deputy Dan Thomas: Well see,about life insurance. Transcript,l. 1124.
Emphasis added.
ROGER AND PAM INDICTED
45. After the prosecutors closing argument advocating for an
indictment against Roger and Pam, they were indeed indicted, arrested, and jailed
for over four months awaiting trial.
46. After Roger and Pam had spent over four months in jail, an
anonymous tip led investigators to two individuals, Mssrs. Rettig and Bond.
Initially, in exchange for a plea deal, Rettig admitted to being one of the two
perpetrators involved in murdering Kay Mortensen. He later withdrew his plea.
-28-
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 28 of 46
-
8/3/2019 Mortensen lawsuit
29/46
Nevertheless, the indictment against Roger and Pam was struck, and Pam was
subsequently released from jail. Roger was kept in jail on an unrelated charge, but
eventually released.
47. As demonstrated above, the Defendants testified in a false
and/or misleading manner on a number of issues, including direct falsehoods,
misrepresentations, half-truths, and omissions of material, exculpatory facts. The
result was that the Grand Jury was not provided numerous exculpatory facts and
evidence and was left with a false impression of the true facts of this incident due
to these misrepresentations, omissions, and false statements of the Defendants.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Malicious Prosecution Misleading the Grand Jury
Against the Officers and Deputies in their Individual and OfficialCapacities,
In Violation of the Fourth Amendment,
Cognizable Under 42 U.S.C. 1983
48. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all above allegations.
49. Law enforcement officers may be liable for the constitutional
tort of malicious prosecution if they knowingly supply false information before a
Grand Jury. This is because the Mortensens have a Fourth Amendment right to
be free from unreasonable seizures.
-29-
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 29 of 46
-
8/3/2019 Mortensen lawsuit
30/46
50. A Section 1983 malicious prosecution claim includes the
following elements:
a. The Defendant causes the Plaintiffsprosecution;
b. The original action terminated in favorof the Plaintiffs;
c. No probable cause supported the original arrest, continued
confinement, or prosecution;
d. Defendant acted with malice; and
e. The Plaintiffs sustaineddamages.
Wilkins v. DeReyes, 528 F.3d 790 (10 Cir. 2008).th
51. The Defendant deputies and officers in this case knowingly
and/or recklessly supplied false and misleading information to the Grand Jury as
follows:
a. Claiming, among other things, that Roger and Pam Mortensen
did not describe the suspects, when in fact they did;
b. Failing todisclose exculpatory facts about Trent Oryall and other
possible suspects, and misrepresenting Trent Oryall as a non-suspect, when in fact he
was a suspect;
c. Claiming that the Mortensens could not describe the suspects
vehicle, when in fact they did;
-30-
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 30 of 46
-
8/3/2019 Mortensen lawsuit
31/46
d. Falsely claiming that the Mortensens refused to provide written
statements, when in fact they did, or were willing to;
e. Falsely claiming, through a number of misleading statements
and omissions, that the Mortensensdid not cooperate with the investigation of this
murder;
f. Misrepresenting the Mortensensfinancial state; and
g. Failing to disclose Rogersserious brain injury , while, at the same
time, telling the Grand Jury that Roger showed no emotion and did not respond
normally to his fathers death.
52. At the time of this wrongful conduct, it was clearly established
that law enforcement officers were required to disclose exculpatory evidence in
their possession and control to both the Grand Jury and to the prosecution, as well
as to turn such evidence over to a prosecutor. Objectively reasonable officers
would have known that they had a duty to disclose and turn over all such
exculpatory evidence relating to the Mortensen murder investigation. These
Defendants did not do so.
53. These Defendants caused the Mortensens to be confined in jail
for nearly four months even though they were innocent of the charges.
-31-
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 31 of 46
-
8/3/2019 Mortensen lawsuit
32/46
54. The prosecution of the Mortensens terminated in their favor
when the indictment was dismissed.
55. No probable cause supported the original arrest, confinement,
and/or prosecution, since the officers lied and/or severely misrepresented and
omitted facts that caused the Grand Jury indictment.
56. The Defendants acted with malice, in that they intended to
cause the indictment, even though they knew or should have known there was
insufficient evidence to move forward on it.
57. The Plaintiffs were damaged in that they were imprisoned for
nearly four months, Pam lost her job, and they both sustained considerable
humiliation, mortification, loss of status with the Mortensen family, and severe
opprobrium from the community, which they still encounter, due to the false
impression that they committed this gruesome murder.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
False Arrest and False Imprisonment
Against the Defendant Officers and Deputies
In Their Individual and Official Capacities,In Violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments,
Cognizable Under 42 U.S.C. 1983
58. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all above allegations.
-32-
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 32 of 46
-
8/3/2019 Mortensen lawsuit
33/46
59. An officer or deputymay not withhold or falsify facts to a
prosecutor, judge, or Grand Jury, so that said officials or persons cannot exercise
an informed, independent judgment. Falsehoods, misleading statements, and/or
omissions to Grand Juries are prohibited.
60. The law enforcement personnel set forth above made numerous
false and misleading statements, and omitted a large number of exculpatory facts
to the Grand Jury.
61. As a result of the wrongful and bad faith conduct of these
officers and deputies, Roger and Pam Mortensen were indicted for the murder of
Rogers father, Kay Mortensen, which they did not commit.
62. At the time of these Defendants wrongful conduct, it was
clearly established that law enforcement officers were required to disclose
exculpatory evidence in their possession and control, and turn such evidence over
to a prosecutor. Objectively reasonable officers would have known that they had
a duty to disclose all such evidence relating to the Mortensen murder
investigation. These Defendants did not do so.
63. The actions of these Defendants caused or were instrumental
in causing the wrongful indictment of Roger and Pam Mortensen for a murder
that they did not commit.
-33-
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 33 of 46
-
8/3/2019 Mortensen lawsuit
34/46
64. The wrongful conduct of these officer/deputy Defendants
resulted in the false arrest and false imprisonment of Roger and Pam Mortensen.
They served approximately four months in the Utah County Jail, awaiting trial for
a murder that they did not commit.
65. No probable cause supported the original arrest, confinement,
and/or prosecution, since the officers lied and/or severely misrepresented and/or
omitted exculpatory facts that caused the Grand Jury indictment.
66. The Plaintiffs were damaged in that they were imprisoned for
nearly four months, Pam lost her job, and they both sustained considerable
humiliation, mortification, loss of status with the Mortensen family, and severe
opprobrium from the community, which they still encounter, due to the false
impression that they committed this gruesome murder.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Supervisory Liability of Chappell, Knutzen, and Brower
In Their Individual and Official Capacities,
Cognizable Under 42 U.S.C. 1983
67. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all above allegations.
68. Chappell acted as lead investigator, Knutzen acted as lead
sergeant, and Brower acted as supervising lieutenant over the Mortensen
murder investigation.
-34-
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 34 of 46
-
8/3/2019 Mortensen lawsuit
35/46
69. These supervisors participated personally in this investigation,
and exercised control or direction of the investigation. Chappell and Knutzen
were familiar with all of the facts, including all the exculpatory facts.
70. Each of these Defendants caused the malicious prosecution,
false arrest, and imprisonment of Roger and Pam Mortensen by failing to exercise
control, direction, and supervision to ensure that the exculpatory evidence that
they had uncovered was fairly, accurately, and completely presented to the Grand
Jury.
71. Each of these Defendants knowingly and wrongfully supplied
false, incomplete, and misleading facts to the Grand Jury, which caused a wrongful
indictment, as set forth in the First Cause of Action herein.
72. Each of these Defendants is also responsible and exercised
direct authority to implement the policies of the UCSO, which required that the
evidence be fairly and accurately presented, and it required that these Defendants
tell the full truth when testifying before a judge or Grand Jury.
73. Because of the actions of these Defendants, there was a failure
to disclose exculpatory evidence to the Grand Jury, which led to a wrongful and
erroneous indictment.
-35-
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 35 of 46
-
8/3/2019 Mortensen lawsuit
36/46
74. At the time of these Defendants wrongful conduct, it was
clearly established that supervisory law enforcement officers were required to
disclose exculpatory evidence in their possession and control when testifying
before a Grand Jury, and turn such evidence over to a prosecutor. Objectively
reasonable supervisors would have known that they had a duty to disclose all such
evidence relating to the Mortensen murder investigation. These Defendants did
not do so.
75. These Defendants caused the Mortensens to be confined for
nearly four months even though they were innocent of the charges.
76. The prosecution of the Mortensens terminated in their favor
when the indictment was dismissed.
77. No probable cause supported the original arrest, confinement,
and/or prosecution, since the officers lied and/or severely misrepresented and
omitted facts that caused the Grand Jury indictment.
78. The Defendants acted with malice, in that they intended to
cause the indictment, even though they knew or should have known there was
insufficient evidence to move forward on it.
79. The Plaintiffs were damaged in that they were imprisoned for
nearly four months, Pam lost her job, and they both sustained considerable
-36-
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 36 of 46
-
8/3/2019 Mortensen lawsuit
37/46
humiliation, mortification, loss of status with the Mortensen family, and severe
opprobrium from the community, which they still encounter, due to the false
impression that they committed this gruesome murder.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Utah State Constitutional Violations
80. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all above allegations.
81. The Utah Constitution provides, among other things, the
following:
Due Process of Law. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, orproperty without due process of law.
Article I, 7.
Prosecution by Information or Indictment Grand Jury.
Offenses heretofore required to be prosecuted by indictment, shall beprosecuted by information after examination and commitment by amagistrate, unless the examination be waived by the accused with theconsent of the State, or by indictment, with or without suchexamination and commitment. The formation of the grand jury andthe powers and duties thereof shall be as prescribed by the Legislature.
Article I, 13 (emphasis added).
Unreasonable Searches Forbidden. The right of the people to besecure in their persons, houses, papers and effects againstunreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated; and nowarrant shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath oraffirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched, and theperson or thing to be seized.
-37-
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 37 of 46
-
8/3/2019 Mortensen lawsuit
38/46
Article I, 14 (emphasis added).
82. The notice provision of the Utah Governmental Immunity Act,
as delineated in Utah Code Ann. 63G-7-401(2), does not apply to Plaintiffs
state constitutional claims because such claims are self-executing.
83. A Utah State constitutional provision is self-executing:
. . . if it articulates a rule sufficient to give effect to the underlyingrights and duties intended by the framers. In other words, courts maygive effect to a provision without implementing legislation if the
framers intended the provision to have immediate effect and if noancillary legislation is necessary to the enjoyment of a right given, orthe enforcement of a duty imposed....
Spackman v. Box Elder School Dist., 16 P.3d 533, 535 (Utah 2000). No notice of
claim is required for a self-executing Utah constitutional claim:
. . . when a plaintiff brings suit under a self executing Utah
constitutional clause, no notice of claim is required. See, e.g.,Heughs Land, L.L.C. v. Holladay City, 113 P.3d 1024, 1027 (UtahCt.App.2005).
Tiscareno v. Frasier, 2009 WL 4730785 (D.Utah 2009) (reversed on other grounds
in Tiscareno v. Anderson, 639 F.3d 1016 (10 Cir. 2011) and affirmed in Tiscarenoth
v. Anderson, 421 Fed.Appx. 842, __ F.3d __ (10th Cir. 2011)).
84. In order to have a State Constitutional claim, a Plaintiff must
prove that the constitutional violation was flagrant, that existing remedies do
not redress the injuries, and that equitable relief is wholly inadequate to protect
-38-
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 38 of 46
-
8/3/2019 Mortensen lawsuit
39/46
the Plaintiffs rights. The Defendant law enforcement officers flagrantly violated
Pam and Roger Mortensens rights by presenting false and misleading testimony
to the Grand Jury, omitting to state important exculpatory facts to the Grand
Jury, and leaving a false impression with the Grand Jury about numerous items of
potentially exculpatory evidence in order to secure an indictment.
85. The Plaintiffs have no existing remedies to redress their
grievances, since they were falsely indicted and jailed for four months because of
the wrongful conduct of the Defendants. They were only released when new
evidence came to light, through an anonymous tip, that pointed to the guilt of
other parties.
86. There is no equitable relief that is in any way adequate, and is
in fact wholly inadequate, to redress the grievances of Pam and Roger Mortensen.
They have already suffered the severe public opprobrium, unlawful imprisonment,
and other damages, such that only a legal remedy is available to them.
87. At the time of these Defendants wrongful conduct, it was
clearly established that law enforcement officers were required to disclose
exculpatory evidence in their possession and control, and turn such evidence over
to a prosecutor. Objectively reasonable officers would have known that they had
a duty to disclose all such evidence relating to the Mortensen murder
-39-
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 39 of 46
-
8/3/2019 Mortensen lawsuit
40/46
investigation. These Defendants did not do so, which flagrantly violated the
Mortensens rights.
88. These Defendants caused the Mortensens to be confined for
nearly four months even though they were innocent of the charges.
89. The prosecution of the Mortensens terminated in their favor
when the indictment was dismissed.
90. No probable cause supported the original arrest, confinement,
and/or prosecution, since the officers lied and/or severely misrepresented and
omitted exculpatory facts that caused the Grand Jury indictment.
91. The Defendants acted with malice, in that they intended to
cause the indictment, even though they knew or should have known there was
insufficient evidence to move forward on it.
92. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants wrongful acts
and/or failures to act, Plaintiffs were denied their constitutional rights to liberty,
to substantive and procedural due process of law, to a proper and legal process of
Grand Jury indictment, and to be free from unreasonable seizures and detentions,
all of which caused them to suffer severe emotional and psychological stress.
93. Plaintiffs were caused to endure emotional and psychological
stress and damage during the time of their incarceration, and they continue to
-40-
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 40 of 46
-
8/3/2019 Mortensen lawsuit
41/46
endure such injuries as a result of the public estrangement, alienation, humiliation,
and opprobrium from the community, caused by the malicious prosecution; the
wrongful and illegal indictment; the wrongful arrest, detention, and denial of
liberty; and other wrongful acts of the Defendants, as detailed herein.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek damages in an amount to be determined at trial, as
appropriate compensation for the injuries, past and ongoing, suffered by Roger
and Pam Mortensen due to the false impression that they committed this
gruesome murder.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Constitutional Violations By the Prosecutors
94. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all above allegations.
95. Prosecutors are generally absolutely immune from Section 1983
liability, as long as they are acting in the judicial or advocatory function of a
prosecutor, i.e., the gathering, evaluation, and presenting of evidence.
96. Prosecutors are not absolutely immune, but only qualifiedly
immune, when they function as a witness, provide legal advice to law enforcement,
violate state statutes, or function as an investigator along with law enforcement.
For example, prosecutors have no absolute immunity for pre-indictment
fabrication of evidence, giving legal advice to law enforcement, making false
-41-
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 41 of 46
-
8/3/2019 Mortensen lawsuit
42/46
statements at a press conference, making false statements at a probable cause
hearing, violating state law, or presenting evidence functionally as a witness would
present it. When the functions of prosecutors and detectives are the same, as
they were here, the immunity that protects them is also the same. Burns v. Reed,
500 U.S. 478, 495 (1991).
97. Based on information and belief, the Defendant prosecutors in
this case functioned as investigators during the pre-Grand Jury investigation of the
Mortensen murder. They did this by interviewing witnesses and advising law
enforcement as to what evidence to obtain, how to obtain it, and how to testify
and present it falsely or misleadingly before the Grand Jury.
98. The Defendant prosecutors also functioned as witnesses in
presenting statements to the Grand Jury that were false and misleading, and which
omitted material facts regarding the evidence. These prosecutorial statements
were intended to suggest to the Grand Jury how they should evaluate other
evidence.
99. The Defendant prosecutors flagrantly violated the
aforementioned state constitutional rights of Pam and Roger Mortensen.
100. These Defendants caused the Mortensens to be confined for
nearly four months even though they were innocent of the charges.
-42-
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 42 of 46
-
8/3/2019 Mortensen lawsuit
43/46
101. The prosecution of the Mortensens terminated in their favor
when the indictment was dismissed.
102. No probable cause supported the original arrest, confinement,
and/or prosecution, since, among other things, these Defendant prosecutors
functioned as witnesses and severely misrepresented facts and/or omitted
exculpatory facts, resulting in the Grand Jury indictment.
103. These Defendants acted with malice, in that they intended to
cause the indictment, even though they knew or should have known there was
insufficient evidence to move forward on it.
104. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants wrongful acts
and/or failures to act, Plaintiffs were denied their constitutional rights, as set forth
above, including their liberty interest, causing them to suffer severe emotional and
psychological stress.
105. Plaintiffs were caused to endure emotional and psychological
stress and damage during the time of their incarceration, and they continue to
endure such injuries as a result of the public estrangement, alienation, humiliation,
and opprobrium from the community, caused to them by the malicious
prosecution and other wrongful acts of the Defendants.
-43-
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 43 of 46
-
8/3/2019 Mortensen lawsuit
44/46
106. Accordingly, Plaintiffs were damaged in that they were
imprisoned for nearly four months, Pam lost her job, and they both sustained
considerable humiliation, mortification, loss of status with the Mortensen family,
and severe opprobrium from the community, which they still encounter, due to
the false impression that they committed this gruesome murder.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
State Constitutional Violations Under Grand Jury Statute
Against Defendant Prosecutors for Violation of 77-10a-13
107. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all above allegations.
108. Utah Code Ann. 77-10a-13(5)(c) provides as follows:
When the attorney for the state or the special prosecutor ispersonallyaware of substantial and competent evidence negating the guilt of a
subject or target that might reasonably be expected to lead the grandjury not to indict, he shall present or otherwise disclose the evidenceto the grand jury before the grand jury is asked to indict that person.
Emphasis and double emphasis added.
109. The Defendant prosecutors in this case were personally aware
of substantial and competent evidence tending to negate the guilt of Pam and
Roger Mortensen. This evidence might reasonably be expected to lead to non-
indictment, had it been presented.
-44-
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 44 of 46
-
8/3/2019 Mortensen lawsuit
45/46
110. These Defendant prosecutors had a duty to disclose such
evidence to the Grand Jury before asking them to indict Pam and Roger
Mortensen. They did not do so, and therefore failed in their statutory duty.
111. The failure to disclose such exculpatory evidence, as required
by Utah law, was a flagrant act in violation of clearly established constitutional
and statutory rights of which reasonable prosecutors would know. This
constituted a flagrant constitutional violation.
112. There are no existing remedies to redress this injury, and
equitable relief is wholly inadequate. As a result, the only avenue of redress for
the Mortensens is a suit alleging a flagrant constitutional violation of Utah Code
Ann. 77-10a-13.
113. The Plaintiffs were damaged in that they were imprisoned for
nearly four months, Pam lost her job, and they both sustained considerable
humiliation, mortification, loss of status with the Mortensen family, and severe
opprobrium from the community, which they still encounter, due to the false
impression that they committed this gruesome murder.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs request a jury trial on all issues in this case.
-45-
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 45 of 46
-
8/3/2019 Mortensen lawsuit
46/46
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants as
follows:
1. For general compensatory damages for each of them in an
amount to be determined at trial;
2. For special damages as are shown at trial;
3. For punitive damages against named individuals for willful,
malicious conduct, as may be allowed by law;
4. For pre-judgment interest on the damages assessed by the
verdict of the jury, as allowed by law;
5. For Plaintiffs costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred
herein, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988; and
6. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
proper.
DATED this 17 day of October, 2011.th
ROBERT B. SYKES & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
/s/ Robert B. SykesROBERT B. SYKESALYSON E. CARTER
Case 2:11-cv-00964-DAK Document 2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 46 of 46