Carson requests new civil trial
KNOXVILLE — Marty Carson has requested that judges in U.S. District Court grant relief from a $5 million verdict returned by a federal jury last month in the civil lawsuit filed against him by Lori Yancey, or that he be granted a new trial as an alternative.
Carson’s attorney, John Duffy, opined in his motion that the court erroneously granted Yancey judgment on the issue of whether Carson had acted under the color of law in shooting Yancey’s husband, Hubert D. “John John” Yancey, when that issue should have been determined by the jury. He added that the court “erred in its instructions to the jury in response to the jury’s questions during deliberations,” that “the verdict of liability is against the clear weight of the evidence,” and that “the jury’s assessment of damages is against the clear weight of the evidence and unreasonable.”
Duffy acknowledged that “post-trial motions for relief from jury verdicts are frequently filed and routinely denied,” but added that the case is “not routine.”
“The nature of this case presented the parties, the court and the jury with unique challenges,” Duffy wrote. “Unique challenges present concomittant room for error.”
Duffy alleged that “no reasonable jury could conclude that Marty Carson had a motive to intentionally or maliciously and sadistically shoot John Yancey, or did so under the circumstances of a raid on a high-profile drug case.” He cited what he called an “inherent implausibility of plaintiff’s theory, which . . . was not overcome by the evidence presented by plaintiff at trial.”
Duffy argued that the plaintiff had “switched horses in mid-stream,” saying that no evidence of the so-called “methamphetamine conspiracy” existed until the summer of 2007. He added that the “hired gun” allegations made by Richard Babb and Joseph Babb was “so contradictory that plaintiff did not even call Joseph Babb (to testify),” and said that Nick Letner — who testified that Carson had threatened to harm his family if Letner did not produce methamphetamine for Carson — “had no personal knowledge of the matters he testified about.”
Duffy argued against the plausibility of a theory that Carson intentionally chose the Williams Creek Road mobile home as a place to kill his partner, saying, “A raid on a suspected methamphetamine lab would inherently receive great publicity. Marty Carson would have known going in to such a scene that an officer-involved shooting of even a suspect would generate an investigation by the TBI and other agencies. He would have further known that law enforcement activity resulting in an officer shot would receive intense scrutiny . . . Planning and/or implementing the intentional shooting death of another officer in a trailer in which Marty had never been, and had no idea how many [witnesses] were inside, is beyond conception.”
Duffy also pointed out inconsistencies of testimony by the occupants of the mobile home at the time Yancey died, saying that Nichole Windle claimed she heard “stomping and scuffling noises” which was not backed up by physical proof (TBI Special Agent Steve Vinsant testified at the trial that the gun would have been two or more feet from Yancey when Carson pulled the trigger), that Mark Rector did not hear Carson yell “Boys, they’re in here,” as Windle testified, that Penny Carpenter did not hear succling noises or more than one voice inside the mobile home until after the shot was fired, and that Ryan Clark “exhibited a complete failure of memory.”
Duffy went on to say that “the location of a single gunshot wound [to] the left shoulder would not be expected to be lethal, leaving the live victim as a witness.”
Duffy acknowledged that Carson’s description of what happened is “also difficult to reconcile with some of the physical facts,” but argued that Carson’s state of mind would be akin to that of a parent who shot at what she thought was an armed intruder, only to discover that she had shot her child. “What one’s mind would allow one to perceive and recall under circumstances where someone is responsible for accidentally shooting a close friend or loved one understandably would be that the objects of person viewed when the shot was fired was a threat. No human mind could bear a perception otherwise,” Duffy said.
Duffy went on to argue that the court had improperly addressed questions by the jury during its deliberation, saying that had the questions been addressed differently, a lesser liability could have been determined by the jury.
Duffy argued that the jury’s compensatory damages award to Yancey was “excessive,” saying that how the jury arrived at the $5 million figure “cannot be known.”
“Such an award is so seriously erroneous, that it could only be the result of sympathy, bias or prejudice,” Duffy argued.
Damages should not have exceeded $750,000, Duffy argued.
The appeal comes as the court continues to consider a request by attorneys for Lori Yancey that the findings of the trial be forwarded to a federal grand jury for investigation.
The jury’s verdict in the six-day trial was the climax of more than three years of speculation into John John Yancey’s death, speculation that officially began when Yancey filed her wrongful death lawsuit against Carson in November 2004, 12 months after her husband was fatally shot by Carson during the investigation of a methamphetamine lab.
A state investigation into that shooting is now underway, as a result of allegations that were made by several witnesses for the plaintiffs during the civil trial. A previous investigation by the TBI resulted in the shooting being determined an accident, but TBI Special Agent Steve Vinsant — who was in charge of both that investigation and the new investigation — testified that he remains uncomfortable about several aspects of the case, including Carson’s description of events inside the home the evening Yancey was shot. Vinsant also testified that he was confident in the result of that earlier investigation, which recommended no criminal charges be filed.
State civil claims are likely still to come in the matter, as U.S. District Judge Thomas Varlan referred all claims except civil rights violation claims to state court at the onset of the federal trial. Those additional claims include loss of consortium and wrongful death.
Attorneys for Lori Yancey have not addressed specifically whether they plan to pursue those claims in state circuit court, but filings by attorney David S. Wigler in federal court last month indicated that such a course of action was being planned for.