The letter summarizes the strong case for a substantial settlement in the civil rights lawsuit Darryl Hunt plans to bring against the City of Winston-Salem. The attorney argues that Hunt's case alleging fabrication of evidence is stronger than the Earl Washington case, where a $2.2 million verdict was awarded. The letter provides details of how police destroyed and concealed evidence linking Willard Brown to multiple rapes, fabricating evidence against Hunt instead. It asserts municipal liability for the police department and city's failure to address misconduct despite notice, allowing wrongful convictions of Hunt to persist for decades. A settlement is urged to avoid an even costlier verdict if the case proceeds to trial.

1. S. MARK RABIL
ATTORNEY AT LAW
4244 ALLISTAIR ROAD
WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. 27104
smrabil@bellsouth.net
January 26, 2007
Mr. Ron Seeber
City Attorney
City of Winston-Salem
Winston-Salem, N.C. 27101
Re: Darryl Hunt vs. City of Winston-Salem, et al
Dear Ron:
I want to follow up on our phone conversation yesterday in which we rejected the City’s
latest offer of $800,000 (in response to our last offer of $2.3 million). Given the
approaching statute of limitations deadline (2/6/07), we believe that the City needs to stop
making incremental moves and accept Darryl’s reasonable offer to settle.
I have closely examined the relevant cases and strongly believe that Darryl Hunt’s case
will survive any summary judgment motions in either state or federal court and that a jury
will decide the amount of damages to be awarded to Darryl. I know that you have been
briefed on the law, but I am not confident that you are familiar with the facts of Darryl’s
case that are to be applied to the law. The claims to be brought by Darryl include federal
civil rights violations as well as state claims for malicious prosecution, fraud, intentional
infliction of emotional distress and conspiracy to obstruct justice.
When one is aware of the institutional racism at play from the outset of this case, and of
the fact that evidence that someone else – Willard Brown – was actually guilty of the
Sykes murder and that this evidence was destroyed or covered up, and of the fact that the
“eyewitness” evidence against Darryl was fabricated by the police, then one must
conclude that a substantial yet reasonable settlement is in order. I will address some of
these issues so that you may share them with the City Council as it considers a settlement
in this case. I request that you share this letter with the members of the Council so that
our position is clear.
The Fabrication of Evidence Claim in Darryl Hunt’s Case is Stronger than the
Evidence in the Earl Washington Case
As a starting point, I would like to address the Earl Washington case, decided by a jury
last year in Charlottesville, Virginia. I cited this to you in our earlier discussions as an
example of the type of verdict that a jury in a small Southern town would render in a
wrongful murder conviction case that is not nearly as compelling as Darryl’s. In the
Washington case, the jury returned a $2.2 million plaintiff’s verdict based upon the
1

2. fabrication of evidence. The damages in that case were low because Mr. Washington was
serving time already for breaking into an elderly woman’s home. The $2.2 million
damage award was solely to compensate Washington for the 9 ½ years he spent on death
row instead of in general population, where he would have been for 18 years. So the
amount of the award is not really indicative of Darryl Hunt’s damages because he would
not have been in prison at all without the fabrication of evidence by the police.
In the Washington case, the evidence fabricated by the police was a false confession by
the defendant. In Darryl Hunt’s case, “eyewitness” identifications were fabricated and
the police concealed or destroyed evidence. I believe that the City should consider that
over $1,000,000 has been paid to date by the defense in the Washington case (Richmond
Times Dispatch, September 1, 2006) and that there is a pending motion for attorney fees
seeking over $1.6 million (Richmond Times Dispatch, November 27, 2006). So, in that
case, the total costs to the defense could be over $4.8 million.
In the Washington case, the 4th
Circuit specifically recognized that a Sec. 1983 claim can
be based upon the fabrication of evidence by the police.
We therefore conclude that the facts stated by Washington allege the
violation of his constitutional right not to be deprived of liberty as a result
of the fabrication of evidence by an investigating officer. Moreover, this
right was clearly established in 1983, when the events relevant to this
litigation took place. See Miller v. [*284] Pate, 386 U.S. 1, 7, 17 L. Ed.
2d 690, 87 S. Ct. 785 (1967) [HN11] ("The Fourteenth Amendment cannot
tolerate a state criminal conviction obtained by the knowing use of false
evidence."). Accordingly, we affirm the denial of qualified immunity. 407
F.3d at 283.
In the Washington case, the 4th
Circuit also rejected the argument that you have espoused
in some of our discussions, to the effect that the police are shielded from liability by
providing exculpatory evidence to the prosecutor (which we deny in this case):
The proper inquiry, however, is whether Washington's conviction was a
reasonably foreseeable result of Wilmore's initial act of fabrication--the
police report. See Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 187, 5 L. Ed. 2d 492, 81
S. Ct. 473 (1961) [HN10] (recognizing applicability to § 1983 claims of
the rule of tort liability [**23] "that makes a man responsible for the
natural consequences of his actions"), overruled on other grounds, Monell
v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 695-701, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611, 98 S. Ct.
2018 (1978); Jones v. City of Chicago, 856 F.2d 985, 994 (7th Cir. 1988)
("[A] prosecutor's decision to charge, a grand jury's decision to indict,
a prosecutor's decision not to drop charges but to proceed to trial--
none of these decisions will shield a police officer who deliberately
supplied misleading information that influenced the decision.").
(emphasis added) 407 F.3d at 283.
2

3. In the Darryl Hunt case, the police department also fabricated evidence. For sure, there
was no “false confession” in Darryl’s case, as there was in Washington. But there is no
legal difference between the fabrication of a false confession and the fabrication of other
incriminating evidence, such as false eyewitness identifications. In Washington, police
induced a false confession by the “leading questions” that implanted crucial facts of the
crime – in Darryl’s case, police induced false eyewitness identifications through unduly
suggestive procedures, rewards and intimidation. There is also no legal difference
between the fabrication of evidence and the destruction of evidence. In fact, in the 4th
Circuit Washington opinion, the Court pointed out that the destruction of evidence would
be evidence of “bad faith,” an element of a federal civil rights claim (and of state claims
for malicious prosecution, etc.).
Another difference between the Washington case and Darryl’s case is that Darryl was
convicted not because of the fraudulent activities of one rogue officer, but because of the
conspiracy of nearly the entire detective division of the Winston-Salem Police
Department, and their supervisors up to and including the chiefs and the prior police
attorney. That is, contrary to the situation in Washington, there is municipal liability in
Darryl’s case, pursuant to Monell,436 U.S. 658 (1978), and other cases, because of the
customs, practices and the deliberate indifference of the police department and the City
authorities to the wrongs being perpetrated against Darryl for nearly two decades.
Evidence to support municipal liability is plentiful:
1. It began with the District Attorney (Donald Tisdale) chastising the police
department for misrepresenting the quality of the case to the victim’s
family in October 1984. In that letter of October 19, 1984, the D.A. told
the Chief: “Yesterday, I had the unpleasant task of talking to the family of
Deborah Sykes, only to find that they were optimistic about the case and
wondering why I was continuing the probable cause hearing. They had
been informed by the police that there was sperm found, that hair samples
were found, that there was significant blood evidence and that the
eyewitnesses were ideal. I did not find it appealing to lie to them and my
most encouraging words to them was that we were in trouble.”1
2. Further evidence that the Chief and others were aware of and part of the
problem is seen with the D.A.’s February 6, 1985 letter to the Chief and
the follow-up correspondence. The D.A.’s letter concluded: “As far as I
can tell there has been no further investigation, and it is abundantly clear
to me that there is a person (or persons) at large who are responsible for
the crime in question. That fact concerns me greatly! It concerns me just
as well that those matters which needed to be cleared up as to Darrell (sic)
Hunt have not been….I believe that our interests are consistent in this
matter and that we would like a solid case against whomever is charged.
Contrary to what has been stated publicly, we do not have a solid
1
Tisdale’s 10/19/84 letter is attached to the 1985 City Manager Report.
3

4. prosecution of any kind.”2
(This letter was written four days after the
2/2/85 Integon rape.)
3. A Monell claim may also be established by the fact of the 1985 City
Manager Report, in which the City acknowledged that the police had lied
about identification procedures, improperly destroyed evidence such as
tapes and field notes, delegated too much of the investigative function to
the D.A., and that one officer gave deceptive testimony.
4. Despite the notice of the problems and customs detailed by the above (and
other correspondence3
), as well as by the disciplinary actions taken against
every officer in the chain of command up to the chief, the City took no
action to insure that the same problems did not occur again.
5. For example, the City Manager and police chief took no action in response
to the 1986 SBI report in which an abundance of new evidence was
revealed.
6. In 1989, when the Supreme Court ordered a new trial for Darryl, the City
took no action to see that proper procedures were followed in the new
investigation. In fact, intimidation of witnesses and concealment of
evidence continued, resulting in another wrongful conviction in 1990.
7. Then, even after learning that DNA testing excluded Darryl Hunt and two
other suspects in 1994, the Winston-Salem Police Department took no
action to find the source of the semen from the Sykes rape kit. This was
unconscionable. Once again, the City and the police department were
prepared to allow a rapist to go free, just as they had done in 1984 and
1985 when they allowed Willard Brown to have his way in the West End
area. If we had not filed a motion for further DNA databank testing in
2003, then the real rapist and killer would never have been found.
8. A judgment in Darryl’s civil action against the City would in and of itself
constitute Monell evidence in future claims.
In Darryl’s case, there was an abundance of evidence that was fabricated or
destroyed, including, but not limited to, the following, thus creating liability for the
City pursuant to state and federal law:
1. The destruction of physical evidence from the other rapes in 1984 –
1985.
a. The Sykes Review Committee revealed in July 2006 that Willard
Brown committed not only the Sykes rape/murder in August 1984, but
also three other rapes in the same area, in June 1984, January 1985 and
February 1985.
b. More than a dozen Winston-Salem police officers were involved in all
four rape investigations and obviously saw the connections (e.g.,
Hicks, Miller, Crump, Weavil and others).
2
Tisdale’s 2/6/85 letter is also attached to the 1985 City Manager Report.
3
See memoranda written by Capt. Cornatzer and other supervisors attached to the 1985 City Manager
Report.
4

5. c. The Committee found that Brown was released from prison on June
13, 1984, just in time to commit a rape in almost exactly the same spot
behind Crystal Towers where Deborah Sykes was killed.
d. Police have falsely claimed that they determined that Brown was not
released from prison until September 1984. However, even twenty
years later, the committee investigators were able to find that Brown
was free in time to commit the June and August 1984 rapes.
e. The investigator for the June 1984 rape, Officer Teresa Hicks, was
called to the Sykes murder scene on August 10, 1984 because of the
proximity to the rape she was supposedly investigating.
f. Five days later, on August 15, 1984, police ordered the destruction of
the June 1984 rape kit. This can only be construed as an attempt to
cover-up the failure to properly investigate the earlier rape.
g. In late September 1984, approximately two weeks after Darryl was
arrested, the June 1984 evidence was actually destroyed (even though
the order to destroy was issued 8/15/84). This can only be construed
as a malicious attempt to cover-up the evidence of the earlier rape in
order to bolster the fabricated case against Darryl.
h. In early December 1984, a Superior Court judge entered an order
requiring the Winston-Salem Police Department to preserve all
physical evidence and tapes related to the Sykes case.
i. Another woman was raped by Brown in January 1985 in the same
area. At some point between 1985 and 1996, the physical evidence
from the January 1985 rape was destroyed, ostensibly so that no one
would make the connection to the Sykes case, and thus jeopardize the
conviction of Darryl Hunt.
j. Another woman was kidnapped by Brown on February 2, 1985, two
blocks from the scene of the Sykes case, at the Integon building. She
was taken at gunpoint to another location and raped.
k. The Integon victim made the connection to the Sykes case and asked
police about the possibility that the two were committed by the same
man. The police became angry with her and told her not to discuss
that because it would jeopardize their case against Darryl Hunt.
l. In May 1985, police somehow developed Willard Brown as a suspect
in the Integon case, and then arranged for that victim to view a photo
lineup that included Brown’s photo. The Integon victim identified
Brown as her assailant, about a week before the first Hunt trial. There
is no evidence in police documents to show that police told this to the
D.A.
m. In April 1986, the Integon victim identified Willard Brown from an in-
person lineup as her rapist. She requested that she be allowed to hear a
voice recording, but the police attorney (McNaught) would not allow it
unless she promised in advance to prosecute.
n. Police told the Integon victim that even if she prosecuted Brown and
won a conviction that he would probably be out in 4 or 5 years and
would come harm her. If convicted, Brown in fact would have been
5

6. locked up for several decades for kidnapping, attempted murder,
armed robbery, first degree rape and other offenses.
o. All of the physical evidence related to the Integon rape was destroyed
by police in 1988-89 – some of it before that case was “closed” in 9/89
– in order to maliciously bolster the prosecution of Darryl Hunt.
p. The destruction of the January and February 1985 rape evidence was a
violation of the December 1984 court order because that evidence was
related to the Sykes case in that they involved the same area, the same
m.o., the same perpetrator. (Pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court case
of Arizona v. Youngblood, the destruction of evidence in violation of a
court order is evidence of “bad faith.”)
2. The concealment of evidence of the February 5, 1985 “Integon” rape.
a. Police did not reveal the evidence of the Integon rape to the
prosecutors or the defense at any time.
b. We attempted to obtain this information from the police department in
1985, but police refused disclosure.
c. If the police had disclosed this evidence to the prosecutors or the
defense at any time between 1989 and 2003, then DNA testing could
have been ordered and Darryl Hunt freed, and Willard Brown
convicted, many years ago.
3. The fabrication of the false identification by Kevey Coleman, and the
concealment of the identification of the real killer, Willard Brown.
a. Coleman made no police statements until two years after the crime, in
1986.
b. The SARC committee has reported that, in 1986, Coleman identified
Willard Brown as the killer he saw. Police did not record this in any
known reports because they knew Brown had been identified as the
Integon rapist and did not want to raise suspicion that he was also the
Sykes killer.
c. Reports released in 1993 showed that Coleman made at least 13
statements to the police. (Only 5 of these statements were disclosed to
the defense.)
d. At first, Coleman said in the reports that he was unable to make an
identification of any kind because he was wearing his contacts.
e. Coleman’s testimony “evolved” from that uncertainty in 1986 to being
virtually certain in 1989 that he saw Darryl Hunt.
f. However, as shown by Coleman’s 1990 trial testimony, he only
identified Hunt after being treated as a suspect himself – police gave
him his Miranda warnings, and fingerprinted and photographed him
(i.e., they “booked” him as a suspect).
g. This intimidation created a false identification of Darryl Hunt and
Sammy Mitchell.
6

7. h. We know that his testimony was false because DNA evidence later
exonerated Darryl Hunt and Sammy Mitchell, just as in the
Washington case.
4. The fabrication of false search warrants.
a. Following Darryl’s arrest, police drew up a false search warrant in
order to search Sammy Mitchell’s house (where Darryl kept his
things).
b. The search warrant was falsely sworn to in that police swore that there
was one citizen, with no record, who saw Darryl Hunt with his arm
around Mrs. Sykes “in an assaultive manner.”
c. As it turns out, this was a “composite” of three witnesses (Murphy,
Gray and Hooper, the latter of whom did not even make an
identification of Darryl).
d. This false search warrant set the tone for the case: the police were
willing and able to fabricate evidence against Darryl, starting with
falsely swearing to a search warrant.
e. In April 1986, the police obtained another false search warrant. This
was a warrant used to take physical samples from Willard Brown, the
real killer in the Sykes case and the rapist in the Integon case. This
warrant was destroyed by police to cover up the false swearing. The
warrant was false because it falsely represented that samples were
needed from Willard Brown to compare to the Integon case, when in
fact it now appears that the evidence was compared to the Sykes case.
The SBI results in 1986 showed that Brown’s blood type (O) matched
the blood type of the semen from the Sykes rape kit(O).4
This was
hidden from the defense, and there is no evidence to show that it was
ever disclosed by the police to the prosecutors.
5. The fabrication of the false identification of Hunt by the former
Klansman Thomas Murphy.
a. Murphy’s composite drawing on the day of the murder did not
resemble Hunt at all (he described a man with a “ruddy” complexion
and pock-marked face, with short hair – no corn rows).5
b. Murphy first mistakenly identified Robert McGriff, who was at work
at the Lighthouse Restaurant at the time of the murder.
c. Just as the police used “leading questions” in Washington to induce a
false confession, police used suggestive identification procedures to
coax Murphy into identifying Hunt:
i. Within days of the murder, Murphy looked at police mug shots
in the “IDMO” file containing a photo of Darryl Hunt, and
Murphy did not identify Darryl as the man he saw.
4
Darryl Hunt was a type (B) and Sammy Mitchell was a type (A). Both were “secretors” meaning that
their blood types could be determined from bodily fluids, such as saliva and semen. Brown is also a
“secretor.”
5
See Wanted poster attached to 1985 City Manager Report..
7

8. ii. In the photo spread first shown to him about a month after the
crime, the only Polaroid photograph in the group was of Hunt.
iii. Hunt was the only person in both the photo spread and in-
person lineup. Predictably, Murphy then recognized Hunt from
his photo and identified him.
d. Murphy’s trial testimony further revealed his racist tendencies (he said
that Darryl had “gotten darker” over the years from 1984 to 1990; and
that “…you could paint him purple and he’d still be the same one.” 2nd
Trial Tr).
e. We know that his testimony was false because DNA evidence later
exonerated Darryl. This is no different from the Washington case: we
know that Washington’s confession was false because DNA evidence
later exonerated him and pointed to the real suspect (See Richmond
Times Dispatch, 9-7-06).
6. The fabrication of the false identification by Johnny Gray.
a. Gray lied about his identity in the 911 call (i.e., “This is Sammy
Mitchell…”)
b. Gray told police the day after the murder, 8-11-84, that he did not see
anything on the morning of the murder. This report was kept from the
defense, and most likely from prosecutors.
c. Gray first positively identified Terry Thomas as the perpetrator on 8-
22-84, but it was discovered that Thomas was actually in jail on the
date of the murder.
d. As shown in the 1985 city manager’s report, the police department
then worked to hide the fact that the Thomas identification ever took
place.
e. The same suggestive procedures used with Murphy were also used
with Gray: a photo lineup with a Polaroid photo of Darryl compared
to mug shots of other suspects; and then Darryl was the only person in
the in-person lineup also in the photo spread.
f. When Gray did see the in-person lineup, he wrote down two numbers
for the person he saw: “1-4.” The police tried to cover this up, as
discussed in the 1985 City Manager report.
g. The police also paid Gray several hundred dollars for his testimony.
h. At the second trial in 1990, instead of admitting that Gray had
identified Thomas on 8-22-84, the police continued to misrepresent
this fact.
i. We know that his testimony was false because DNA evidence later
exonerated Darryl, just as in the Washington case.
7. The fabrication of the false identification by Rodger Weaver.
a. Weaver spoke to police a few days after the crime, but said he could
not make any identification. (1984 police report not initially revealed)
8

9. b. His description of the person he saw in the Hyatt House on 8-10-84
did not resemble Hunt at all (he described a person with a Michael
Jackson style Jeri-curl as opposed to the corn rows in Darryl’s hair).
c. Despite this, the police showed him a lineup in May 1985, ten months
after the crime and after extensive publication of Darryl’s photograph
in the local news media. Of course, Weaver identified Darryl from
this unconstitutional lineup.
d. We know that his testimony was false because DNA evidence later
exonerated Darryl, just as in the Washington case.
8. The fabrication of false evidence from Margaret Crawford.
a. Police knew that this 14 year old, runaway, drug-addicted child, living
as a prostitute, had mental problems.
b. Police paid her money to sign statements against Darryl Hunt and
Sammy Mitchell in September 1984.
c. In 1990, police officers illegally stopped a bus on which she was
riding and forcibly brought her to jail in Winston-Salem so that she
would testify against Darryl at the second trial.
d. She was released from jail following her false testimony.
e. We know that her testimony was false because DNA evidence later
exonerated Darryl and co-defendant Mitchell, just as in the
Washington case. There is no legal distinction between fabricating a
false statement from a witness and the fabrication of a false confession
of a suspect, as in Washington.
9. The fabrication of the Arthur Wilson murder charge. To add to this
nightmare, the police wrongfully and maliciously charged Darryl with the
1983 death of Arthur Wilson. This came in April 1986 and was clearly a
backlash to the critical November 1985 City Manager’s report. A June
2004 Winston-Salem Journal report presents evidence that Wilson
probably died from a fall and was not even murdered. Darryl was
convicted once on this charge, but was finally acquitted at a second trial,
at which the prosecutor correctly revealed to the defense damaging
impeachment evidence against the primary State’s witness. The Wilson
charge shows that the police department knew no bounds and would go to
any extent to persecute Darryl. The same officers who were involved in
the Wilson case were also involved in the second Sykes prosecution. This
is evidence of malice and bad faith, to say the least.
Institutional Racism Will Be An Extremely Important Part of Darryl Hunt’s Case
Unfortunately, the ugly issue of racism in the City police department will be a
necessary part of this case. Racism is evidence of bad faith, malice and intentional
misconduct. Racism also constitutes an additional cause of action for violation of
Darryl’s civil rights. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1985 (2) and (3) (that allow causes of action for
9

10. obstruction of justice or violating equal protection on the basis of race). The Sykes
investigation began with the police having the attitude that “any black man will do” and
continued that way for the next 20 years. Let me summarize:
1. Chief Masten said at a news conference when Darryl Hunt was charged
9/14/84: “Our goal from the beginning was to make a charge, and we
made a charge…” This was an admission of the rush to judgment. Even
the District Attorney was upset that the police charged Darryl without an
adequate investigation (per Tisdale 10/84 letter to chief).
2. Lead Detective Daulton said to an Internal Affairs investigator in January
1986: “I considered every black male in Winston-Salem a suspect….”
[in response to question was Terry Thomas a suspect?] Tragically, neither
the City nor the police department took any actions to correct this rampant
racism in the department.
3. Daulton essentially deputized and continued to use former Klansman
Murphy as witness even after the misidentification of Robert McGriff.
Daulton and Murphy worked every morning for two weeks in a car at the
scene looking for a black suspect to return to the scene of the crime.
4. Police intentionally ignored problems of cross-racial identification and
took no steps to insure proper eyewitness identification procedures:
a. As discussed above, police fabricated the false eyewitness
identifications of Darryl through unduly suggestive procedures,
rewards and/or intimidation tactics.
b. Police falsely claimed at trial that they could not include corn rows on
composites. (City Manager Report 1985)
c. Police intentionally covered up the fact that none of the eyewitnesses
initially described the suspect as having hair in corn rows on 8-10-84 –
rather, police got witnesses to add this important detail later to match
Hunt’s appearance on 8-10-84.
d. Black witnesses were treated differently than white witnesses – they
were Mirandized and treated as suspects and sometimes threatened:
i. Brian Watts, who found the body, was questioned for four
hours as a suspect on 8-10-84.
ii. Kevey Coleman, who was discovered in 1986, was questioned
at least 13 times over four years, and only made an
identification of Hunt after being threatened with being
charged. (2nd
Trial Tr)
e. None of the primary investigators were black.
f. Use of term “nigger” by officers when questioning Darryl Hunt when
they went to the prison in April 1986 to arrest him in the fabricated
Wilson murder case.
g. For the second trial, police willing to use Jesse Moore, a racist who
repeatedly used the word “nigger” in a letter to authorities.
h. A WHITE RAPE SUSPECT IN 1984/85 WAS TREATED
DIFFERENTLY THAN THE BLACK SUSPECT DARRYL
HUNT UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES: It was revealed
10

11. for the first time in 2006 that there was another series of rapes in the
West End area in the summer of 1984 and that a white man was
initially charged with three rapes; when the blood typing from the SBI
Lab did not match, the case against the white suspect was dismissed –
this was the same period of time when the police prosecuted Darryl,
and his blood type did not match, and there were other rapes that were
ignored (6/84, 1/85 & 2/85). There is no explanation for this
discrepancy, other than the obvious conclusion that the white suspect
was treated differently than Darryl because of race.
Comparable Verdicts/Settlements
I must also point out that there have been a number of substantial settlements and verdicts
in wrongful conviction cases around the country that have not been nearly as compelling
as Darryl’s case. Here are some examples:
1. In 2002, a California Superior Court Judge awarded Mark Diaz Bravo $1,215,250
per year for 3.23 years of wrongful incarceration. The Plaintiff recently received
$7,075,367.82 in full settlement ($3,925,256 damages plus $2,000,000 interest
plus $1,374,444 in attorney fees and costs.
2. In March 2006, Arvin McGee settled his wrongful conviction Monell claim
against the City of Tulsa, Oklahoma for $12.5 million.
3. In Newsome v. McCabe, No. 96 C 7680, 2002 WL 548725, verdict reported at
2001 WL 34030890 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 29, 2001), 319 F.3d 301 (7th
Cir. 2003), cert.
denied, 123 S. Ct. 2621 (2003) ($1 million/yr.) “A jury found that, by
concealing evidence favorable to the defense, McCabe and McNally had violated
Newsome’s constitutional right to due process of law and awarded him $15
million in damages, to which the district judge (after denying all post-trial
motions) added some $850,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs. The Plaintiff, a drug
user with criminal record, was only damages witness.
4. In August 2006, the Cochran, Neufeld & Scheck law firm (CNS) won a
$9,000,000 verdict for Larry Mayes, who spent 18 years in prison wrongfully (=
$500,000 per year). Mayes, a wrongfully convicted African-American man spent
more than 18years in prison for a rape he did not commit. The all-white Indiana
jury awarded $9,000,000 despite learning that Mayes had three prior felony
convictions, that he had been incarcerated for nine of the eleven years preceding
his wrongful conviction, and that he had used multiple aliases and had routinely
cheated on drug tests while in prison. The award was against both the City of
Hammond and the captain of detectives.
5. Miller v. City of Boston, et al., No. 03-10805-JLT (March 9, 2006 settlement). In
addition to $3.2 million settlement of § 1983 action with Boston, Neil Miller
received the maximum $500,000 settlement from Massachusetts in state Unjust
Conviction Statute action in 2005 and prior settlement of maximum $100,000
under Tort Claims Act against public defender for malpractice. Mr. Miller was
also a CNS client.
11

12. Request for Copy of SARC Report and Appendices
Please remember that all of the above can be asserted and included in the Complaint we
are preparing in this case, and we have not yet even seen the forthcoming SARC report.
In fact, we hereby request (as we have verbally requested on several occasions) that the
City release a copy of the SARC report along with the 9,000 pages of attachments to us
immediately so that we may fulfill our Rule 11 investigation obligation. If necessary, we
can agree to a confidentiality order to prohibit disclosure, except as may be required for
inclusion in our Complaint.
Conclusion
I strongly believe that the City Council should consider the reactions of the City Manager
and the members of the Sykes Administrative Review Committee to the facts they have
learned about this case. From what I have seen, many of them appear to have been
angered and disgusted by the actions of the police in this case. They have been especially
upset over the refusal of retired police officers to even discuss the case with the two
internal affairs police officers assigned to help the Committee. In many ways, this
Committee is similar to a jury. Based on their reactions, I believe the Council can rest
assured that a reviewing court or a jury will be shocked and angered. This is what the
United States Supreme Court was talking about when stating that a federal civil rights
substantive due process claim will succeed when the actions of the police “shock the
conscience.” County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) (high speed police
chase case finding no liability in a situation vastly different from the Hunt case).
Darryl’s damages, in many ways, cannot be calculated. How do we put a dollar amount
on the loss of nearly nineteen years? How do we compensate Darryl for being
incarcerated in some of the worst prisons in the State for no good or justifiable reason?
How do we make restitution for surviving the attempts on his life, the loss of sleep, the
ulcers, the psychological distress? How do you go back in time and give somebody the
chance to have a regular life, with a job, a retirement plan, children, grandchildren, a
home? I suggest comparing Darryl’s case to the other verdicts and settlements discussed
above. In light of those cases, Darryl’s request is extremely reasonable. The amount
Darryl is asking for is minimal.
We ask that the Council proceed with the healing of this community and follow the
Mayor’s lead with the attempts at racial healing. This healing can begin only by asking
forgiveness, and by making fair restitution. The healing will not begin by hyper-
technical readings of the law: this is what was done to Darryl by the State and the courts
from 1984 to 2003. The decision to treat Darryl fairly is more than a legal decision. It is
the right thing to do.
As attorneys, we have an obligation to encourage our clients and our communities to act
properly. Darryl is giving back to the community on a daily basis by promoting racial
healing, advocating for justice reform and helping former inmates re-enter the
12

13. community. Darryl does not want to file a lawsuit against the City, but he is prepared to
do so unless a fair compromise can be reached.
Darryl has a great incentive to settle this case prior to filing a lawsuit, as does the City.
Darryl will incur a large contingency fee obligation as well as court costs and expenses.
We project that the City will have to pay well over $1 million to defend the case.
The City needs to continue to do its part with the healing process. The City Council has
made a great stride by appointing the Sykes Administrative Review Committee so that
the truth can finally be revealed to the citizenry and corrective action taken with the
police department. One of the final steps the City needs to take is to make redress to
Darryl for his two decades of struggle.
Thank you for your attention to this, one of the most important matters this City Council
will ever address.
Sincerely,
/s/ S. Mark Rabil
S. Mark Rabil
Xc: Mr. Larry Little, co-counsel for Darryl Hunt
Mr. Darryl Hunt
Mr. Lee Garrity, City Manager
Ms. Angela Carmon, Assistant City Attorney
Cochran, Neufeld & Scheck, Attorneys, New York
13