Truman Lawsuit

Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 152
LINCOLN HOBBS (#4848)

SARAH ORME (#13827)
HOBBS & OLSON | CARPENTER HAZLEWOOD
466 East 500 South, Suite 300
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
801-519-2555
lincoln@haolaw.com
sarah@haolaw.com
MARK R. MOFFAT (#5112)

ANN MARIE TALIAFERRO (#8776)
BROWN BRADSHAW & MOFFAT
422 North 300 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84103
801-532-5297
mark@brownbradshaw.com
ann@brownbradshaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Conrad Truman
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
CONRAD TRUMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
OREM CITY, a Utah municipality; OREM COMPLAINT

CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, a division of AND
Orem City; OREM CITY POLICE OFFICER JURY DEMAND
THOMAS WALLACE, an individual; OREM
CITY POLICE OFFICER WILLIAM CROOK,
an individual; OREM CITY POLICE OFFICER
ORLANDO RUIZ, an individual; OREM CITY
POLICE OFFICER ART LOPEZ, an individual; Case No. _________
OREM CITY POLICE OFFICER TODD
FERRE, an individual; DEPUTY UTAH Judge _________
COUNTY ATTORNEY CRAIG JOHNSON, an
individual; OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE 1-
10, individuals; and ATTORNEY(S)
JOHN/JANE DOE 1-5, individuals.
Defendants.
Plaintiff CONRAD TRUMAN (Plaintiff, Conrad, or Truman), by and through
counsel, complains and alleges against Defendants as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Plaintiff Conrad Truman was detained, questioned, searched, arrested, criminally
charged, incarcerated, tried, convicted and imprisoned for more than 3 years after his wifes
death. In the absence of the misleading, false and outright fabricated evidence knowingly
advanced and used by these Defendants, Plaintiff would never have suffered the significant
emotional and mental anguish, as well as the deprivations of liberty, privacy and property he has
endured.
This is a civil rights action in which the Plaintiff seeks relief for the Defendants
violations of his rights as guaranteed by both the United States and Utah State Constitutions,
which rights are further secured by the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988.
This is further an action at law to redress a deprivation under color of statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage of a right, privilege, and immunity secured to the Plaintiff by the
Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States, as well as the
Constitution of the State of Utah.
Plaintiff seeks damages, both compensatory and punitive; affirmative and equitable
relief; costs and interest; and any an all further relief that this Court deems just and equitable.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This action arises under the United States Constitution and federal law, particularly under
the provisions of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the
United States, and 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988.
2
2. This action also arises under the Utah Constitution, and particularly the self-executing
provision under Art. 1, 13.
3. This action seeks redress for violations of the civil rights laws of the United States, and
jurisdiction is therefore invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1343 and 42 U.S.C. 1983.
4. This Court also has jurisdiction over any pendent State claims Plaintiff may wish to
bring, or has brought, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367.
5. The claims made in this Complaint occurred and arose in the State of Utah, in this
District, and in the Central Division. Venue is therefore proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391 and 28
U.S.C. 1331.
6. Plaintiff is seeking damages under federal law pursuant to the claims for relief specified
below, in amounts to be proved at trial.
7. This Court has authority to award costs and fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988.
PARTIES
8. Plaintiff Conrad Truman is an individual currently residing in Beaver County, State of
Utah. Conrad Trumans wife, Heidy Truman, died on October 1, 2012 in Orem, Utah.
9. Defendant Orem City (CITY) is a municipality organized under the laws of the State of
Utah. CITY is responsible for the supervision, training, official polices, customs, and actual
practices of its agents, including the Orem City Police Department and the officers employed by
them.
10. Defendant Orem City Police Department (OCPD) is a division of the CITY. OCPD is
also responsible for the supervision, training, official polices, customs, and actual practices of its
agents and the officers employed by them.
3
11. Defendant Thomas Wallace (WALLACE) is or was employed by the Orem City Police
Department as a police officer, and at all times applicable to this action, was acting under the
authority of the City and the OCPD in his capacity as an Orem City law enforcement officer.
WALLACE was lead investigator throughout the investigation and criminal prosecution of
Conrad Truman, and participated in the fabrication of evidence, making false and misleading
statements in numerous warrant and investigative subpoena affidavits, making false statements
to the Utah State Deputy Medical examiner, and in the criminal prosecution of Conrad Truman.
12. Defendant William Crook (CROOK) is or was employed by the Orem City Police
CROOK was one of the first responders in the Truman home in the hours surrounding Heidy
Trumans death, and participated in the illegal detention, interrogation, destruction of evidence,
fabrication of evidence, investigation, and in the criminal prosecution of Conrad Truman.
13. Defendant Art Lopez (LOPEZ) is or was employed by the Orem City Police
LOPEZ was one of the officers who responded to the Truman home in the hours surrounding
Heidy Trumans death, and participated in the illegal detention, interrogation, destruction of
evidence, fabrication of evidence, investigation, and in the criminal prosecution of Conrad
Truman.
14. Defendant Orlando Ruiz (RUIZ) is or was employed by the Orem City Police
4
RUIZ was one of the officers who responded to the Truman home in the hours surrounding
Heidy Trumans death, and participated in the illegal detention, interrogation, investigation, and
in the criminal prosecution of Conrad Truman.
15. Defendant Todd Ferre (FERRE) is or was employed by the Orem City Police
FERRE was one of the officers and a Sergeant who responded to the Truman home in the hours
surrounding Heidy Trumans death, and participated in the illegal detention, destruction of
evidence, interrogation, investigation, and in the criminal prosecution of Conrad Truman.
16. Defendant Craig Johnson (JOHNSON), at all times relevant herein, was a prosecutor
employed by the Utah County Attorneys Office, a governmental entity operating under the laws
and statutes of the State of Utah. JOHNSON responded to the Truman home in the hours
surrounding Heidy Trumans death and participated in manufacturing/fabricating evidence,
making false statements to the Utah State Deputy Medical Examiner, investigation and in the
criminal prosecution of Conrad Truman. Also, specific to JOHNSON:
a. JOHNSON served in both an investigatory role and prosecutorial role at various
times relevant here.
b. JOHNSON is not entitled to immunity, absolute or otherwise, as to the actions he
took that cast him in the role of an administrator or investigative officer rather than that of an
advocate;
c. Specifically, absolute immunity has been found not to extend to, among other
5
things: a prosecutors actions in advising the police in the investigative phase of a criminal case;1
a prosecutors actions in advising the police on interrogation methods or the existence of
probable cause;2 a prosecutors actions in fabricating evidence during the preliminary
investigation of a crime,3 a prosecutors review of an affidavit in support of a search warrant
prepared by law enforcement,4 and a prosecutor swearing under oath to false statements of fact
in an information, since he has become a complaining witness rather than a prosecutor.5
Generally, an attorney engages in an investigatory function if the attorney makes a preliminary
gathering of evidence that might ripen into a potential prosecution.
17. OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE 1-10 are individuals or law enforcement agencies. The
true names and capacities of Defendants named as OFFICER(S) JOHN AND JANE DOE are
presently unknown to the Plaintiff. Also:
a. Upon belief, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE 1-10 are law enforcement agencies,
officers, supervisors and/or civilian staff employed by the Orem City Police Department, the
Utah County Sheriffs Office, investigators with the Utah County Attorneys Office, or
employees of other cooperating agencies that participated in the investigation and prosecution of
Conrad Truman.
b. OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE 1-10 are police officers, supervisors, evidence
custodians or technicians, or others who interacted with the Plaintiff or the evidence at issue in
1
See Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 111 S. Ct. 1934, 114 L. Ed. 2d 547 (1991).
2
See, e.g., Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 111 S. Ct. 1934, 114 L. Ed. 2d 547 (1991); Mink v.
Suthers, 482 F.3d 1244 (10th Cir. 2007).
3
See Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 113 S.Ct. 2606, 125 L.Ed.2d 209 (1993).
4
See, e.g., Mink v. Suthers, 482 F.3d 1244 (10th Cir. 2007); Eden v. Voss, 105 F.App'x 234 (10th
Cir. 2004).
5
See Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (1997).
6
this case, and/or individuals who supervised, watched, or personally participated in the illegal
detention, interrogation, destruction or loss of evidence, fabrication of evidence, investigation or
prosecution of Conrad Truman.
c. OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE 1-10 are persons who, in the course of
discovery in this proceeding, may be found liable and to have personally acted or failed to act
knowingly and with reckless disregard for the truth.
d. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend his complaint to reflect these individuals or
entities as personal liability may become established or fully uncovered.
18. ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE 1-5 are individuals. The true names and capacities
of Defendants named as ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE 1-5 are presently unknown to
Plaintiff.
a. Upon belief, ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE 1-5 are other attorneys who
assisted or who advised law enforcement during the investigative stages of this case, and/or other
attorneys or prosecutors specifically employed by the Utah County Attorneys Office, a
governmental entity operating under the laws and statutes of the State of Utah.
b. ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE 1-5 are not entitled to immunity, absolute or
otherwise, with regard to any actions taken that cast the attorney in the role of an administrator
or investigative officer rather than an advocate.
c. ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE 1-5 are persons who, in the course of
discovery in this proceeding, may be found liable and to have personally acted or failed to act
knowingly and with reckless disregard for the truth.
d. The Plaintiff reserves the right to amend his complaint to reflect these individuals
7
or entities as liability may become established or fully uncovered.
19. This action is brought against Defendants WALLACE, CROOK, RUIZ, LOPEZ,
FERRE, JOHNSON, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE 1-10, and ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE
DOE 1-5 in both their individual and official capacities.
20. EACH DEFENDANT is a person under the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and is located
in this judicial district. Defendants serve the citizens of this judicial district, and while
performing their official duties, they act under the color of law.
21. EACH DEFENDANT was personally responsible and liable to Plaintiff in some
manner for their acts and/or omissions performed under color of law, for the events and
occurrences described hereafter, and for the resulting injury and damages to Plaintiff.
GENERAL FACTS APPLICABLE TO ALL CLAIMS
22. On October 1, 2012, at 12:37 a.m, Heidy Aline Truman (Heidy) was pronounced dead
at Utah Valley Regional Medical Center.
23. Heidy died as the result of a contact gunshot wound to her right temple.
24. The fatal shot was inflicted at her home in Orem, Utah.
25. The only two persons in the home at the time of the fatal shot were Heidy and her
husband, Conrad Truman.
26. At the time of Heidys death, the couple had been married approximately 3 years.
27. Heidy was 25 years old at the time of her death.
28. Conrad was 30 years old at the time of Heidys death.
29. The couple owned several firearms for both recreational and self-defense purposes.
30. Relevant to the firearms at issue in the case:
8
a. Conrad owned what was referred to and known as the silver-handled gun;
b. Heidy owned and held out as her gun what was referred to and known as the
black-handled gun. Conrad bought this firearm and gave it to Heidy as a gift;
c. Both guns were the same make and model of firearm Sigsauer P238;
d. The clips of both guns were interchangeable;
e. The guns were both available for both Heidy and Conrads use, despite any
question as to technical ownership;
f. On the night of Heidys death, both guns were loaded, ready, and accessible;
g. On the night of Heidys death, Conrads silver-handled gun was on the kitchen
table in its leather concealed carry holster;
h. On the night of Heidys death, Heidys black-handled gun was located on or in
Heidys night stand in the master bedroom next to her side of the bed;
i. Heidys black-handled gun had a magazine capable of holding 7 rounds and one
round in the chamber. To accommodate the eighth round, the gun had to be racked and in a
ready to fire position.
26. All material objective and/or forensic evidence supports the conclusion that Heidy died
as the result of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. This evidence includes the facts that:
a. The fatal wound was a contact gunshot wound to Heidys right temple;
b. Heidy was right-handed;
c. According to the autopsy report, a penetrating gunshot wound was located within
the scalp hair of the right temple. The defect was centered 7 centimeters (2.75 inches) above and
3 centimeters (1.18 inches) in front of the right external auditory meatus (ear canal);
9
d. The wound path was from right to left, angled slightly upward and minimally
from front to back; almost a straight through path;
e. The nature of the wound (contact wound to the temple, almost straight through
pathway) is highly indicative of and most consistent with a self-inflicted shot;
f. Deputy Utah Medical Examiner Dr. Edward Leis (Dr. Leis) testified that in his
30-plus years of experience, he has never (save for perhaps one time) performed an autopsy on a
homicide victim with a contact gunshot wound to the right temple with this type of wound path;
g. As part of the autopsy, Dr. Leis took gunshot residue (GSR) samples from the
right and left hands of Heidy Truman. Although the GSR samples were never sent for analysis
prior to trial number one, forensic analysis conducted after Conrads initial trial and conviction
revealed that Heidy had a significant amount of two and three component GSR particles on her
right hand consistent with her having fired the fatal shot. Heidy was right handed. She had only
one two-component gunshot residue particle on her left hand;
h. As part of the investigation, Orem Police Department evidence technician Patricia
Pikus (Pikus) took GSR samples from the right and left hands of Conrad Truman. Although
the GSR samples were never sent for analysis prior to trial number one, forensic analysis
conducted after Conrads initial trial and conviction revealed that Conrad had no two or three
component GSR particles on his hands consistent with him having fired the fatal shot;
i. Placing Heidys head at a location of convergence as determined by law
enforcements blood stain analysis and stringing process, it is established that Heidy fell within a
foot from the hallway opening into the kitchen and the area from where the shot was heard;
j. Forensic analysis revealed that the black-handled gun inflicted the fatal wound;
10
k. The black-handled gun that inflicted the fatal wound was kept in or on the night
stand on Heidys side of the bed;
l. Witnesses reported that the black-handled gun was observed in an area next to
Heidys body before an officer kicked it under the kitchen table;
m. During law enforcements search and investigative processing of the scene, the
spent casing from the black-handled gun was found in the hallway area in front of the bathroom
door, between a vacuum cleaner and a pair of socks;
n. During law enforcements search and investigative processing of the scene, there
were blood and blood droplets in the hallway area on the floor;
o. During law enforcements search and investigative processing of the scene, the
nylon/velcro holster which usually housed the black-handled gun was found on Heidys side of
the bed, on the same side of the room as the night stand where the black-handled gun was
usually kept;
p. Cell phone records establish that Heidy accessed her cell phone approximately
three minutes prior to Conrads call to 911;
q. During law enforcements search and investigative processing of the scene,
Heidys cell phone was found on her side of the bed, within arms reach of the night stand and the
black-handled gun which was kept there;
r. The cell phone evidence and the location where Heidys cell phone was found
shows that in the moments prior to the fatal shot, Heidy was within arms reach of the black-
handled gun in the master bedroom by her night stand;
s. No forensic analysis conducted (i.e. blood, serology, fingerprint, DNA, ballistics)
11
evidences that anyone other than Heidy Truman herself fired the fatal shot;
t. Based on the true and accurate evidence, no expert has, or can, conclude that
anyone other than Heidy Truman herself fired the fatal shot;
u. Heidy possessed several suicide risk factors.
EVENTS SURROUNDING HEIDY TRUMANS DEATH
The Couples Day
27. September 30, 2012, was a usual Sunday for the couple.
28. Heidy and Conrad spent the day eating a late brunch, shopping at local stores, and
eventually settled-in for a night of watching television.
29. The couple went to a local K-mart around 3 oclock in the afternoon.
30. The couple went to a local Target, arriving at approximately 4:20 in the afternoon, and
leaving about an hour later at approximately 5:20 p.m.
31. It is estimated that the couple returned home between 6-6:30 p.m.
32. The groceries were unloaded.
33. Conrad, at first, helped put groceries away.
34. Conrad then worked on his motorcycle for a period of time.
35. Conrad also worked on his Bronco and spent time cleaning the rims.
The Evening
36. At some point while Conrad was working on the vehicles, Conrad and Heidy began
drinking alcohol; specifically shots of Makers Mark whiskey.
37. Conrad has estimated that he consumed five or six shots of alcohol during the evening.
12
38. Conrad has estimated that Heidy consumed less alcohol than he did, and estimated about
four or five shots of alcohol.
39. Heidy was anxious to watch the season premiere of Dexter and on at least two
occasions went outside to prompt Conrad to finish what he was doing so they could watch the
show together.
40. Conrad took longer than expected and the show had to be recorded.
41. At some point, Conrad and Heidy watched the television shows Dexter and Homeland.
42. At some point, Heidy boiled eggs for egg salad sandwiches.
43. At some point, both Heidy and Conrad heard a noise outside the home.
44. In response, Conrad took one of his dogs and walked around the neighborhood to
investigate the noise.
45. Conrad has estimated that he and his dog returned approximately 20 minutes later.
46. The couple then began talking and debating about whether they should get another dog,
and they looked at photos of American Bull Terriers.
47. At some point, Heidy became upset and irritated with Conrad.
48. At some point thereafter, Heidy went into the bathroom to take a bath or shower.
49. Heidy locked the bathroom door, which was not unusual.
50. Conrad took the pin which was kept on the molding above the bathroom door,
unlocked the door, and went in.
51. Conrad entering the locked bathroom was not unusual, as both Heidy and Conrad often
walked in on each other in the bathroom.
52. Heidy told Conrad to get out.
13
53. Conrad believed that Heidy was upset or irritated with him, and so he left her alone.
54. At some point thereafter, Conrad took their second dog outside to use the bathroom.
55. At or around this time, Conrad called Heidys cell phone intending to leave her a
message.
56. Cell phone records show that a phone call was placed from Conrad Trumans cell phone
to Heidy Trumans cell phone on September 30, 2012 at 10:47:10 PM Mountain time.
57. Cell phone records show that the phone call was not answered by Heidy Trumans phone,
but the call was rejected which had to occur by pressing the end call or equivalent button
when the call was incoming.
58. Cell phone records show that upon rejection of the call, the call was sent to voicemail.
59. Cell phone records show that Heidy Trumans phone received a voicemail message on
September 30, 2012 at 10:48:44 PM Mountain time.
60. Cell phone records show that a message was left.
61. The message retrieved later by law enforcement consists of four seconds of silence.
62. Conrad estimates that after a few minutes outside with the dog, Conrad went back in
the house.
63. At some point after returning inside, Conrad believes he put his cell phone on the charger
in the master bedroom on his night stand.
64. At some point after returning inside, Conrad believes he played doggie games with his
dogs.
65. At some point after returning inside, Conrad was located in the kitchen area of the home.
66. At some point while Conrad was in the kitchen area, Conrad heard a door open.
14
67. Conrad only heard a door open but did not see a door open.
68. Conrad assumed it was the bathroom door he heard open because that is where
Heidy had been.
69. Cell phone records show that the voice mail on Heidys phone was accessed.
70. The read timestamp column in Heidys cell phone records indicates the time the
voicemail message was read, or listened to by the end user. This timestamp shows that Heidy
took an action to listen to the voicemail message at 10:55:58 PM Mountain time.
71. Heidys cell phone was found by law enforcement on Heidys side of the bed in the
master bedroom, within arms reach of Heidys night stand where the black-handled gun was
kept.
The Pop
72. Shortly after Conrad heard a door open, Conrad heard what he has described as a pop
or slap or tap sound.
73. Conrad has estimated that it could have been one to five minutes between the time he
heard a door open and the time he heard the pop sound.
74. The sound did not sound like a gunshot to Conrad.
75. Conrad looked over and moved toward the sound.
76. Conrad saw Heidy in the entryway to a small hallway that separates the kitchen from the
bathroom and bedroom hallway area.
77. From this point, everything happened fast.
78. Conrad moved that direction to see what happened.
15
79. Conrad does not recall if Heidy fell and hit the ground, or if he caught her and brought
her down.
80. Conrad clearly remembers that Heidy fell through the hallway entry to the floor of
the kitchen area.
81. Conrad did not know what had happened or what was wrong.
82. Heidy seemed to be choking and fighting for air.
83. Conrad saw blood coming out of Heidys mouth and nose.
84. Conrad attempted CPR.
85. Conrad was panicked and felt helpless.
86. Conrad knew he had to call 911.
87. Conrad tried to turn Heidys head to the side because she was gasping for air.
88. As Conrad turned Heidys head, a large amount of blood and brain matter poured out and
pooled around her body.
89. The sight of blood and other matter overwhelmed Conrad.
90. Conrad became hysterical.
91. To the best of Conrads recollection, he ran to get his cell phone from the master
bedroom and also maybe to the bathroom to get a towel to stop the blood.
92. The scene was gruesome.
93. Heidy lay on the kitchen floor, gasping for air and choking, as a large amount of blood
and brain matter pooled around her body.
16
Officers Respond
94. Conrad placed a frantic 911 call at 10:59 p.m., only approximately 3 minutes after Heidy
retrieved the voicemail from the master bedroom.
95. Conrad was panicked and hysterical when he called 911.
96. Conrad was so panicked and hysterical that the 911 dispatcher could not understand
Conrad at some points.
97. Conrad was so panicked and hysterical that the 911 dispatcher thought Conrad was a
female.
98. Although panicked, Conrad answered the 911 dispatchers questions and complied with
her instructions.
99. Conrad kept the line open with 911 and placed the call on speaker phone.
100. The 911 call was recorded and the recording speaks for itself.
101. The 911 call was ultimately disconnected by law enforcement officer CROOK upon his
arrival approximately 7 minutes after the 911 call was placed.
102. Although several law enforcement officers arrived at the same time, then-Corporal
William CROOK from the Orem City Police Department was the first officer to enter the
Truman home.
103. When CROOK pulled-up to the Truman house, Conrad was just outside the doorway
waving his arms and screaming for help.
104. CROOK ran to the front of the house and followed Conrad inside.
105. Orem City Officer Dan McKown followed behind CROOK.
17
106. Once inside, officers noticed that it was a split level home and on the right hand (north)
side, a set of stairs went directly up to the kitchen area.
107. CROOK followed Conrad up these stairs and noticed a female laying in a pool of blood.
108. The female was in the prone position.
109. There was a pool of blood and what appeared to be brain matter surrounding her body.
110. CROOK stated that her head was wet. CROOK did not know if her head was wet with
water but it was definitely wet and soaked with blood.
111. The female was not clothed.
112. The females head was positioned towards the east side of the home with her feet
extending west.
113. Conrad was hysterical and yelled for the officers to help her.
114. CROOK witnessed Conrad crouch next to the females body as a dog appeared over his
shoulder that was barking.
115. CROOK ordered Conrad to take the dog to the back bedroom.
116. Conrad complied and put the dog in the master bedroom at the north end of the house.
117. After securing the dog, Conrad immediately came back and again crouched down on the
side of Heidys body, kneeling in the blood pool.
118. Conrad tried to turn Heidys head towards him and attempted to blow into her mouth.
119. CROOK witnessed Heidy aspirate blood back out into Conrads face and on his person.
120. Conrad yelled at officers to save her, yelled at Heidy to stay alive, and yelled words to
the effect that he would kill them if she died or they did not save her.
18
121. Conrads anger and his threats were directed at people in order to get them to help save
Heidy.
122. Although officers use the words and phrases to describe Conrad as making threats or as
threatening, officers acknowledge that Conrad never put his hands on any officer.
123. Although officers use the words and phrases to describe Truman as making threats or
as threatening, officers acknowledge that Conrad was hysterical, wanted help for his wife, and
this is where the threats were coming from.
124. Conrad had blood on his pants which officers confirm was consistent with Conrad
kneeling in the pool of blood surrounding the body.
125. Conrad had blood on his shirt, hands, arms, and around and in his mouth which
officers confirm was consistent with Conrads efforts to comfort his wife and provide CPR.
126. Knowing that the paramedics had arrived, CROOK and Officer McKown physically
moved Conrad away from Heidys body.
127. CROOK and McKown placed Conrad on a chair that was pulled away from a small table
near Heidys body.
128. As Conrad sat on this chair, paramedics worked on Heidy in the blood pool close by.
129. Also as Conrad sat on this chair, CROOK began questioning Conrad as to what had
happened.
130. This questioning by CROOK literally occurred as CROOK physically stood between
Conrad and the paramedics as they were working on Heidy in the bloody pool.
131. Conrad soon noticed that his silver-handled gun was lying on the kitchen table in its
holster.
19
132. In order to notify the officers of the guns presence, Conrad picked up the holstered gun
and threw it off to the side of the table to a chair.
133. When Conrad picked up the holstered gun, blood from Conrads hands was transferred to
the firearm.
134. Additionally, when Conrad tossed the firearm, it hit briefly into the side of a cabinet and
left a blood transfer, before landing on the kitchen chair.
135. As CROOK questioned Conrad, Conrad was hysterical and did not make sense.
136. At this point, Conrad explained to the best of his ability that he had heard a pop sound,
he saw Heidy in the doorway entrance of the kitchen, then she fell to the ground.
137. Conrad also tried to explain that the sound he heard didnt sound like a gunshot.
138. At some point while paramedics were still working on Heidy, CROOK made Conrad
leave the kitchen area and ordered Conrad to back down the staircase with his hands up.
139. Conrad was then detained by another officer in the small living room area at the bottom
and to the south of the staircase.
140. Heidy was taken from the scene approximately 8-10 minutes after the arrival of the
paramedics.
141. Conrad was never told he was free to go.
142. Conrad was under the control and custody of law enforcement officers as Heidy was
taken out of the home and transported the hospital.
Officers Unconstitutionally Detain and Question Conrad at the Truman Home
143. Several officers had arrived at the Truman residence by the time Heidy was taken away
by the paramedics.
20
144. The officers on scene included Officers CROOK and McKown, as well as Orem City
Police Officers Chris Watson, Art LOPEZ, Chris Elias and Sgt. Todd FERRE.
145. Once the ambulance left, FERRE directed McKown to start a crime scene log to
document who was coming and going. (Log).
146. The Log indicates that Heidy left at 2315" and arrived at Utah Valley Regional Medical
Center at 2322".
147. FERRE sent Officer Watson to follow the ambulance and stay with Heidy.
148. After Heidy was taken from the home, and for approximately the next 50 minutes, the
several officers on scene refused to take Conrad to the hospital until he calmed down.
149. The scene was bloody and gruesome.
150. The scene was chaotic.
151. A portion of the events that occurred while Conrad remained at the home was audio
recorded by two separate officers: CROOK and LOPEZ.
152. These recordings speak for themselves, but evidence that:
a. Conrad was distraught and traumatized;
b. Conrad asked several times to go be with his wife;
c. Conrad asked officers to test his hands and his silver handled gun in an effort to
show that he had not shot a weapon, and in the hopes that officers would take him to be with his
wife;
d. Conrad asked officers to look or let him show them where Heidy kept her gun in
the bedroom;
21
e. Conrad asked several times to be allowed to aid his dogs incessantly barking in
the background;
f. Conrad asked several times to call family or friends, or for the officers to call
family or friends, to come be with him.
153. At some point, Ms. Renee Flitton, a victim advocate employed by the Orem City
Police Department arrived on scene.
154. Ms. Flitton entered the home and made contact with Conrad in the living room area north
of the stairway leading directly up to the kitchen.
155. Officers thereafter continued to pepper Conrad with questions.
156. Ms. Flitton also questioned Conrad as to what had occurred.
157. Ms. Flitton smelled the odor of alcohol on Conrads breath.
158. Ms. Flitton observed blood on Conrads clothing, pants, and arms.
159. Conrad remained anxious, fidgety, and could not sit still.
160. Conrad paced and at times, spit in a garbage can in the corner of the room because his
mouth was dry and raw, and had remnants of Heidys blood from Conrads efforts at CPR.
161. Conrads two dogs, which had been secured in two separate rooms, were panicked and
barking incessantly.
162. Worried because the dogs were scared and distressed, Conrad asked on multiple
occasions for officers to allow him to take the dogs out to the back yard so they would stop
barking.
163. Officers acknowledge that the barking seemed to affect Conrads concentration and
angst.
22
164. During this time period in the home, Officers, and particularly CROOK, LOPEZ and
FERRE, denied Conrads requests to show officers where Heidys gun was kept in the master
bedroom.
FERRE, refused to allow Conrad to physically show them where he saw Heidy after he heard the
pop.
FERRE, failed and/or refused to allow Conrad access to a phone to call family or friends to come
be with him.
FERRE, failed and/or refused to themselves call any family or friends to come be with Conrad.
Nor did victim advocate Flitton seek to call family or friends to come comfort Conrad.
168. During this time period in the home, Conrad asked for his family (specifically to include
his father and sister) on multiple occasions, and requested that somebody call them or that he be
allowed to do so.
FERRE, ignored Conrads statement of his rights:You know, sir, I can call a lawyer right now, I
can get a friend to comfort me. By these statements, Conrad was clearly indicating that he
wished for the assistance of counsel, a friend, or a family member at this difficult time.
FERRE, ignored Conrads request to have an attorney called.
23
171. During this time period in the home, Conrad was not allowed to move freely about the
house because officers considered this a potential crime scene.
172. Conrad was traumatized and anxious.
173. Officers, and upon belief LOPEZ and/or FERRE, threatened to handcuff Conrad if he
did not calm down.
174. In this traumatized and anxious state, officers and Ms. Flitton continued to ask Conrad
questions about the events of the evening.
175. Conrad literally begged officers to take him to be with his wife.
176. Conrad tried to comply with the officers requests and answer their questions so that
officers would finally take him to the hospital to be with his wife.
177. At some point, LOPEZ told Conrad: Conrad, lets go wash your hands, and walked
him to the bathroom downstairs in the basement.
178. As LOPEZ and Conrad walked downstairs, FERRE told LOPEZ not to wash Conrads
hands.
179. LOPEZ washed Conrads hands, or allowed Conrad to wash his hands, even though his
sergeant, FERRE, expressly stated not to.
180. CROOK reported: Officer Lopez [] asked Truman to wash his bloody hands in the
bathroom at the bottom of the stairs below the living room. After a minute, they came back
to the living room and began talking.
181. No other officer on scene, including CROOK, FERRE, or OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE
DOE stopped the hand washing.
24
182. In washing Conrads hands, LOPEZ destroyed and/or failed to preserve crucial
exculpatory evidence to wit, Conrads preserved hands and an opportunity to demonstrate that
his hands were free of gunshot residue prior to washing.
183. In allowing Conrads hands to be washed, CROOK, FERRE, AND OFFICER(S)
JOHN/JANE DOE destroyed and/or failed to preserve crucial exculpatory evidence to wit,
Conrads preserved hands and an opportunity to demonstrate that his hands were free of
Gunshot Residue prior to washing.
184. According to the Log, Truman left the residence and was taken to the hospital at 0006
51 minutes after Heidy was taken from the home.
185. Conrad was driven to the hospital by LOPEZ.
186. Ms. Flitton followed in her own vehicle.
187. As Conrad got into the police vehicle, Conrad again asked for LOPEZ or Ms. Flitton to
call his family.
188. LOPEZ refused and expressed that Conrad was being unreasonable in the request.
189. To this point, Conrad had not been advised of his Miranda warnings.
190. Conrads trip to the hospital with LOPEZ was audio recorded and the recording speaks
for itself.
191. After Conrad left, CROOK walked through the entire home and made observations as to
the location of certain blood evidence, the conditions of all windows and doors in the home, and
the back yard.
192. CROOK reports: Upon looking around the house, I noticed that the bathtub was filled
with water []. The room was very humid.
25
193. CROOK and OFFICER(s) JOHN/JANE DOE searched through the entire house prior to
any warrant being obtained.
Heidy Truman Passes Away/ Officers Unconstitutionally Detain and Interrogate

Conrad Truman at the Hospital and Police Station
194. Upon arriving at the hospital, LOPEZ had Conrad wait with Ms. Flitton.
195. Some time thereafter, Conrad and Ms. Flitton were escorted into the emergency room
with at least one officer where hospital personnel were working on Heidy.
196. Heidys head was bloody and had various tubes inserted and medical devices attached.
197. Blood and brain matter was caked in Heidys hair.
198. The gaping head wound was clearly visible.
199. Heidys hands had been bagged upon the direction of officer Watson.6
200. An Orem City Police Officer, upon information and belief Officer Watson, admonished
Conrad not to take too long because this was a crime scene.
201. Conrad went to Heidy, tenderly hugged her and stroked her hair, and was allowed
only a brief few minutes.
202. Conrad was then escorted from the room.
203. After leaving the room, LOPEZ directed Conrad to change his clothes and took them as
evidence. No warrant was sought or obtained for these clothes.
204. Some period of time thereafter, the doctor notified Conrad that Heidy had passed away.
6
Officer Watson reports that around 2344 hours, he went with Heidy while she had a CT scan.
While she was in the CT Scan, Watson asked the Doctors to put her hands in paper bags to preserve any
evidence that might be needed. Thereafter, Watson reports that the first time medical staff let Conrad in
to see Heidy, Watson realized her hands were not in paper bags. Watson states that he asked Conrad not
to touch her for a minute and asked the medical staff to place her hands in the paper bags, at which time
both hands were placed in paper bags. Watson told Conrad this needed to be done in order to preserve
any evidence.
26
205. Some period of time thereafter, Conrad was again escorted into the room with Heidys
body in order to pay his last respects.
206. No one from Conrads family had yet arrived to the hospital. Upon information and
belief, no one from Conrads family had yet been called.
207. The room with Heidys body was filled with complete strangers to Conrad, to include
multiple law enforcement officers, Orem City evidence technician Patricia Pikus, and medical
personnel, all observing Conrads every move.
208. Conrad went to Heidy and kissed her on the head through a blood soaked sheet.
209. Conrad then went to Heidys feet and grieved.
210. Conrad was given no opportunity to be alone with his wife before or after she died, and
was, at all times, under the observation, direction, custody and/or control of at least one police
officer.
211. After a few minutes, Conrad was escorted directly to a nearby empty hospital room and
again interrogated by two Orem City police officers, RUIZ and LOPEZ.
212. Conrads interrogation at the hospital was audio recorded and the recording speaks for
itself.
213. RUIZ writes in a police report that the questioning at UVRMC began at approximately
1:20 a.m and ended at approximately 2:03 a.m.
214. Neither RUIZ nor LOPEZ advised Conrad of his Miranda warnings.
215. Conrad was distraught and traumatized, and still under the effect of alcohol.
216. Conrad asked several times to go be with his family.
217. Law enforcement officers guarded the door.
27
218. At some point, evidence technician Patricia Pikus took gunshot residue samples from
Conrads hands. No warrant was sought or obtained for these samples.
219. Some amount of time later, Conrad was transported to the Orem Police Department by
LOPEZ.
220. Conrads transport to the Orem Police Department was audio recorded and the recording
speaks for itself.
221. LOPEZ did not advise Conrad of his Miranda rights at this time.
222. At the Orem Police Department, Conrad was detained for approximately 45 minutes in
an interrogation room with LOPEZ.
223. The detention and interrogation at the Orem Police Department was audio and video
recorded and the recording speaks for itself.
224. The video recording of the interrogation room shows that Conrad entered with LOPEZ
at approximately 3:42 a.m. and Conrad was allowed to go use the bathroom at approximately
4:26 a.m.7
225. LOPEZ did not advise Conrad of his Miranda rights during this time.
226. Conrad was then brought back into the room at approximately 4:28:50 a.m. by
Officers RUIZ and CROOK and detained for approximately two more hours.
227. According to the video recording, RUIZ advised Conrad of his Miranda rights at
4:30:52 a.m.
228. While the recording speaks for itself, by way of summary, the recording evidences the
following:
7
The times cited herein are taken from the video recording unless otherwise noted.
28
a. Conrad was still in shock, traumatized, and likely experiencing the effects of
alcohol;
b. Throughout the detention, Conrad asked multiple times to leave;
c. Throughout the detention, Conrad asked multiple times to go be with family;
d. Throughout the detention, Conrad expressed on multiple occasions that he was
suffering and had just experienced the trauma of his wifes death;
e. Throughout the detention with RUIZ and CROOK, Conrad attempted to leave
on multiple occasions but was denied his right;
f. Throughout the detention with RUIZ and CROOK, Conrad expressed on
multiple occasions that he did not know what happened.
229. The recording shows that two phlebotomists arrived to take Conrads blood at
approximately 4:53 a.m.
230. A warrant had been sought and obtained for Conrads blood.8
231. When the phlebotomists finished drawing Conrads blood, Conrad walked out of the
room at 5:09:58 a.m.
232. Conrad was quickly shepherded back into the room by RUIZ and CROOK at 5:11 a.m.
233. The detention and interrogation continued and became more confrontational.
234. Eventually, as the detention and interrogation seemingly neared an end, RUIZ expressed
he thought they were finished, at which time Conrad sought to go to the bathroom.
8
As set forth below, this warrant was invalid since it was not based upon the requisite showing of
probable cause, and further, because the affidavit in support contained false and misleading statements or
omissions made knowingly or in reckless disregard for the truth.
29
235. At 5:54 a.m., Conrad stood up to leave but CROOK stopped him and continued the
detention and questioning.
236. Conrad is allowed to leave the room at 5:57:48 to go to the bathroom. Both CROOK
and RUIZ leave the interrogation room.
237. At 6:01, CROOK brings Conrad back in the room and detains him further.
238. CROOK stands in the doorway, blocking the only exit to the room.
239. CROOK orders Conrad to go sit in the chair across the room because he doesnt
want him by the door. (6:03:38).
240. Conrad is upset with CROOKs treatment, but complies.
241. CROOK detains, belittles, and baits Conrad, treating him with disrespect.
242. CROOKs actions are cruel and unreasonable.
243. CROOK becomes more confrontational, orders Conrad to look him in the eyes, and
accuses Conrad of shooting his wife. (6:06:05).
244. Conrad is clearly upset and wants to leave and be away from CROOK.
245. Conrad attempts to leave the interrogation room. (6:06:27).
246. CROOK blocks Conrad and orders stay here. (6:06:28).
247. Conrad asserts that he is not under arrest and wants to leave.
248. CROOK demands that Conrad sit down multiple times.
249. Conrad attempts to leave again and tells CROOK that CROOK is not going to treat
[him] like this. (6:06:36).
250. CROOK again blocks Conrad from leaving the room and orders him to sit down.
30
251. CROOK orders Conrad to sit down multiple times, and threatens, Conrad do you
want to leave? Sit down (6:06:47).
252. Conrad asserts his right: I can leave if I want.
253. CROOK again orders Conrad to go sit down. (6:06:50).
254. Conrad is upset but sits down.
255. Conrad expresses that he should not have to be treated as he was.
256. CROOK continues to detain, taunt and antagonize Conrad for several more minutes.
257. RUIZ eventually reappears and Conrad again attempts to leave.
258. Upon information and belief, RUIZ and/or other officers, including OFFICER(S)
JOHN/JANE DOE and LOPEZ watched CROOKs treatment and illegal detention of Conrad
and did nothing to stop the continued unreasonable seizure and questioning.
259. Conrad again asks and/or attempts to leave. (6:08:33).
260. RUIZ does not allow Conrad to leave. (6:08:40).
261. Conrad seeks RUIZs help from CROOKs behavior.
262. RUIZ closes the door of the interrogation room and he detains Conrad for several
more minutes.
263. RUIZ and Conrad walk out of the room at 6:15:04.
264. Upon belief, CROOK and/or other officers, including OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE
and LOPEZ watched RUIZs treatment and illegal detention of Conrad and did nothing to stop
the continued unreasonable seizure and questioning.
265. Throughout the interrogation, Conrad adamantly maintained, and did so throughout the
entire evening, that he did not hurt or shoot his wife and that he did not know what happened.
31
266. Throughout the interrogation, and although he became upset and frustrated with the
officers treatment, Conrad never acted threatening, assaultive, or belligerent toward the
officers.
Statements Made by Conrad Truman
267. Overall, there are seven recordings taken in the hours surrounding Heidy Trumans
death. These recording include:
a. The 911 dispatch call;
b. A recording initiated by CROOK at the Truman home before Conrad was taken
to the hospital;
c. A recording initiated by LOPEZ at the Truman home before Conrad was taken to
the hospital;9
d. A recording of Conrads transport from the Truman home to Utah alley Regional
Medical Center (UVRMC);
e. The recorded interrogation involving RUIZ and LOPEZ at UVRMC;
f. A recording of Conrads transport from UVRMC to the Orem Public Safety
Building (OPS);
g. The recorded detention and interrogation involving LOPEZ and then CROOK
and RUIZ at the OPS.
268. Additional recordings exist of Conrads interaction with officers and others, including:
a. A telephone conversation recorded by WALLACE on October 3, 2012, when
9
Although the CROOK and LOPEZ recordings capture a large portion of the same happenings at
the Truman home, the two recordings begin and end at different times.
32
Conrad called to inquire about the property officers seized, and requesting photographs from his
cell phone for Heidys funeral;
b. A surreptitious audio and video recording made by Heidys brother-in-law, Jason
Keller, on October 4, 2012, at the direction of Orem police officers, and upon belief, RUIZ, Sgt.
Leany, Detective Savage, Detective Rich, and Lt. Mallinson;10
c. A recording of Heidys funeral and persons speaking by her casket, which was
made at the direction of Orem police officers.11
d. Two audio and video recordings of Conrad on October 10, 2012 when he went to
the OPS with his sister in order to give palm and fingerprints.12
e. An interview with Officers WALLACE and James Park October 18, 2012,
approximately two weeks after Heidys death wherein officers sought to question Conrad at
ICU Medical, Conrads place of employment.
f. An interview with RUIZ on October 31, 2012 during the service of a search
warrant at the Truman home, wherein RUIZ expresses that he believes Conrad loved Heidy, but
Conrads story does not make sense and RUIZ believes Conrad accidentally hurt her because
10
Jason Keller also drew a diagram as to what Conrad explained which was given to officers.
This diagram shows Heidys body and feet close to the hallway entrance as Conrad described to him.
11
A warrant was sought and obtained to place a recording device in Heidys casket. As set forth
below, this warrant was invalid since it was not based upon the requisite showing of probable cause, and
further, because the affidavit in support contained false and misleading statements or omissions made
knowingly or in reckless disregard for the truth.
12
A warrant was sought and obtained for Conrads prints. As set forth below, this warrant was
invalid since it was not based upon the requisite showing of probable cause, and further, because the
affidavit in support contained false and misleading statements or omissions made knowingly or in
reckless disregard for the truth. Additionally, part of these recordings are of Conrads sister speaking on
the phone in the interrogation room while Conrad is with officers elsewhere. It is believed she is
speaking with an attorney.
33
this wasnt a suicide. During this questioning, Conrad again indicated that he will go over it
again with officers with a lawyer.13
g. A telephone conversation with Scott Finch, an investigator with the Utah County
Attorneys Office, on June 18, 2013. Therein, Conrad made mention that officers broken down
his door just a week prior when officers were there to do their scene reconstruction, and also
discusses the previous encounter with RUIZ on Halloween. Conrad expresses frustration and
believes he is being harassed by police.14
269. Additional recordings were also made of various officers interviews with potential
witnesses.
270. The recordings specifically made in the moments and hours after Heidys death were
made while Conrad was traumatized, in shock, and experiencing the effects of alcohol
consumption.
271. Throughout all the recordings, Conrad repeatedly and consistently expressed that he did
not know what happened, expressed confusion, and/or expressed that he did not know how to
explain the events he saw.
272. The recordings themselves are the best evidence of what was actually said, as well as the
tone, demeanor and context surrounding the statements.
273. However, despite Conrads confusion and memory gaps due to the trauma he
13
A warrant was sought and obtained. As set forth below, this warrant was invalid since it was
not based upon the requisite showing of probable cause, and further, because the affidavit in support
contained false and misleading statements or omissions made knowingly or in reckless disregard for the
truth.
14
A warrant was sought and obtained to enter the Truman residence. As set forth below, this
warrant was invalid since it was not based upon the requisite showing of probable cause, and further,
because the affidavit in support contained false and misleading statements or omissions made knowingly
or in reckless disregard for the truth.
34
experienced, the recordings show that Conrad consistently and repeatedly explained the
following material facts regarding the moments surrounding the shot:
a. He was in the kitchen and he thought his wife was in the bathroom;
b. While he was in the kitchen, he heard a door open;
c. He did not see Heidy come out of the bathroom;
d. Some time shortly after hearing a door open, it could have been one minute or it
could have been five minutes, he heard a pop sound;
e. The sound did not sound like a gunshot;
f. He looked over and moved toward the location of the noise;
g. He saw Heidy in the hallway entry, a location described as the hallway, the
hallway outside the bathroom, and the wall by the printer;
h. Heidy went through the hallway entrance to the floor of the kitchen;
i. Conrad went to her and tried to aid her;
j. Heidy appeared to be choking and gasping for air;
k. Conrad did not know what was wrong;
l. Conrad tried to give her CPR;
m. He saw blood and other matter that scared him;
n. He knew he could not help and had to call 911;
o. Because she appeared to be choking or fighting for air, Conrad turned her head
and a great amount of blood poured out;
p. Conrad admittedly panicked and became hysterical when he saw the enormous
amount of blood and other material in her hair;
35
q. Conrad did not see Heidy with a gun;
r. With regard to Heidys location, Conrad made numerous statements that he saw
her in the hallway area by the wall near the table with the printer after he heard the pop;
s. Conrad also consistently expressed that he did not know what happened,
expressed confusion, and/or expressed that he did not know how to explain the events he saw;
t. In fact, a review of the recordings evidence that on approximately 90 occasions,
u. Conrad indicated that he did not know what happened, did not know how to
explain what he saw or otherwise expressed confusion as to what had occurred;
v. In his state of shock and trauma, Conrad asked questions and posed hypotheses
to officers as to what might have happened in response to officer questioning. Law
enforcement officers admit that Conrad was hypothesizing and not making statements of fact;
w. Conrad repeatedly asked officers what happened;
x. Because of the neighborhood he lived in, Conrad questioned whether his wife
could have been shot by someone outside of the home through the bathroom window;
y. Also because of the neighborhood they live in, Conrad stated: Thats why I
dont know [whats] going on, that's why I think someone . . . shot her, I don't know what's
going on. I don't know if she shot herself, I don't know. Although questioning whether Heidy
could have shot herself, Conrad made statements refusing to believe that Heidy would
intentionally kill herself;
z. When asked about the firearms, Conrad tried to explain that Heidys gun was
like his mothers (which was a black-handled firearm); that it was usually kept in a velcro case
36
in Heidys night stand; but the last place he saw the gun was on top of her night stand on her
side of the bed where she had kept it when he had recently been in Chicago for a week;
aa. When asked whether Heidy would have had time to come out of the bathroom
and go into the bedroom and get the gun and shoot herself right at the doorway of the hallway
between the time Conrad heard the door open and then the pop sound, Conrad confirmed that
she would have had time to do so;
bb. When asked about finances, Conrad explained that the couple was not struggling
financially; they had just refinanced their home and were looking to buy a new house; explained
that he had just sold some stock from his work and they had a lot of money they needed to put
somewhere, so they had met with a financial planner who wanted to sell them a whole life
insurance policy for investment purposes, but Conrad didnt want to;
cc. When asked, Conrad told officers that Heidy had a hard childhood and did not
get along with her mother;
dd. When asked, Conrad explained that Heidy gets a little bit weird and becomes
emotional and another side comes out when she has a little too much to drink;
ee. When asked, Conrad denied that there had been, or could have been, anybody
else in the home that could have shot Heidy.
Officers Investigate the Scene
274. Orem City Police Detective Thomas WALLACE was on-call the evening of September
30, 2012.
275. WALLACE received a call at approximately 11:10 p.m. concerning a shooting.
37
276. WALLACE then spoke with Sgt. FERRE on the phone who gave WALLACE
preliminary information.
277. When WALLACE arrived at the Truman residence approximately 55 minutes later,
Conrad was just leaving for the hospital.
278. The Log indicates that WALLACE and evidence technician Patricia Pikus arrived at the
Truman residence at 12:05 a.m.
279. The Log indicates that Conrad left the Truman residence at 12:06 a.m.
280. Upon arriving at the Truman residence, WALLACE was briefed by FERRE and
CROOK.
281. Wallace then contacted Deputy Utah County Attorney Craig JOHNSON.
282. The Log indicates JOHNSON arrived at the Truman residence at 1:03 a.m. and left at
1:23 a.m.
283. WALLACE then froze the scene, drafted and sought search warrants, and the home
was processed throughout the early morning hours until finally released later that day, October
1, 2012, at approximately noon.
284. WALLACE was the lead detective on this case.
285. Upon information and belief, JOHNSON advised WALLACE throughout the entire
investigation and prosecution of Conrad Truman. ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE may also
have advised WALLACE during the investigation of Conrad Truman.
286. Upon information and belief, WALLACE kept JOHNSON advised and briefed as to the
status of the investigation and the facts and the circumstances that developed. WALLACE may
38
have also kept ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE advised and briefed as to the status of the
investigation and the facts and the circumstances that developed.
287. As lead detective, WALLACE assigned various other officers duties in the immediate
hours surrounding Heidy Trumans death, to include:
a. Directing Lt. Joshua Adams to attend Heidy Trumans autopsy which occurred
at approximately 9 a.m. on October 1, 2012;
b. Directing Detective Brad Rich and Detective J. Bailey to canvass the
neighborhood and obtain witness statements from neighbors;
c. Directing evidence technician Patricia Pikus to go to the hospital to take pictures
of Heidys body, to take GSR from Conrad Trumans hands, and to return to the Truman
residence to help photograph and process the scene;
d. Directing RUIZ to go to the hospital, remain with Conrad the entire time, and to
question him and get Conrads statement;
e. Directing other officers to help document and process the scene; and
f. Eventually, at approximately 5:30 a.m., contacting Doug Squire from the Utah
County Sheriffs Office to attempt to determine the location where the shot occurred. The Log
indicates that Doug Squire arrived on scene at 6:27 a.m. The Log indicates that Scott Finch
arrived on scene at 6:47 a.m. to aid.15 Mr. Squire and Mr. Finch both log out of the scene at
9:38 a.m.
288. After leaving the scene to draft an affidavit and to obtain warrants, WALLACE and
other officers returned to the Truman residence at approximately 3:20 a.m.
15
Scott Finch was called by JOHNSON to aid in the stringing process and scene
processing.
39
289. According to the Log, Officers Bailey and CROOK returned to the Truman residence at
3:20 a.m.
290. According to the Log, WALLACE returned to the Truman residence at 3:27 a.m.
291. According to the Log, evidence technician Pikus returned to the Truman residence at
3:32 a.m.
292. Officers remained at the scene while WALLACE sought warrants. Upon information
and belief, FERRE and Officer Elias stayed and secured the scene.
a. These officers went into the Truman home and took the dogs out of the two
separate bedrooms wherein they had been secured;
b. Upon information and belief, in doing so, items were moved, a large photograph
fell from the living room wall, and officers walked through the scene and/or blood pool an
unknown number of times;
c. It is unknown what other items of evidentiary value were moved or further
contaminated while WALLACE sought warrants.
293. WALLACE acknowledges that the scene was contaminated.
294. WALLACE notes that everything in the immediate kitchen area had blood on it;
295. WALLACE acknowledges that the area had been walked through by numerous people
and animals, including Conrad, two dogs, several paramedics and several officers.
296. As WALLACE and others processed and photographed the scene, relevant observations
and evidence were noted as follows:
a. A towel with blood in it was observed on the kitchen floor. WALLACE
acknowledged this towel with blood was consistent with Truman going to the bathroom to get a
40
towel to apply pressure to try and stop Heidys bleeding;
b. A blood transfer was observed on the bathroom light fixture and in the sink.
WALLACE acknowledged this blood was consistent with Truman going to the bathroom to get
a towel to apply pressure to try and stop Heidys bleeding;
c. A blood transfer was observed on the master bedroom door. WALLACE
acknowledged this blood was consistent with Conrad going into the bedroom to get his cell
phone to call 911, and also consistent with Conrad securing his dog in the master bedroom once
officers arrived;
d. A blood transfer was observed on the phone charger on Conrads night stand.
WALLACE acknowledged this blood was consistent with Conrad going into the bedroom to get
his cell phone to call 911;
e. A blood transfer was observed on the handle of the silver-handled gun that had
been thrown into a chair, as well as a transfer just above it on the wall. WALLACE
acknowledged this blood was consistent with CROOKs observation of Conrad picking up the
silver handled gun and tossing it in the chair, having first hit into the wall;
f. Blood droplets and transfers were observed going down the stairs, out the door,
and to the outside area of the home. WALLACE acknowledged this blood was consistent with
the paramedics transporting a bleeding Heidy Truman outside the home and placing her on a
gurney outside the front door;
g. A bullet casing was found just outside the bathroom door next to a vacuum
cleaner and a pair of socks. Photographs taken of the scene and later forensic analysis confirm
that the casing did not have blood on it;
41
h. Blood was observed in the hallway area, on the baseboard and on the floor.
Photographs taken of the scene confirm presence of blood evidence in the hallway area;
i. Heidys cell phone was located on the bed in the master bedroom, on Heidys
side of the bed within arms reach of Heidys night stand. There were no blood transfers on the
bedding or Heidys cell phone. Photographs taken of the scene and later forensic analysis
confirm an absence of blood evidence on these items;
j. Conrads cell phone was located on the floor of the kitchen, and had been placed
there by Conrad when he put the 911 dispatcher on speaker. There was some blood on
Conrads cell phone and the floor by it. WALLACE and CROOK acknowledged this blood was
consistent with Conrad touching the phone in calling 911. Officer Crook disconnected the 911
call;
k. The silver-handled gun was located in its holster, on a chair by the table where
he tossed it in CROOKs presence;
l. The black-handled gun was located under the kitchen table, where it had been
surreptitiously kicked by CROOK as he was questioning Conrad;
m. WALLACE discovered the nylon and velcro holster which held the black-
handled gun in the master bedroom, under a dog bed on the floor at the foot of the north wall on
Heidys side of bed. WALLACE acknowledges that the dog in that room had been upset and
frantic and tore the room up;
n. The bath tub still had water in it, and the shower curtains were on the outside of
the tub. Officers did not test the temperature of the water or analyze it for residue. No pictures
were taken of the drained tub;
42
o. Photographs taken of the scene depict razors on the tub ledge;
p. Photographs taken of the scene depict open soap and shampoo bottles on the tub
ledge;
q. Photographs taken of the scene depict a plugged in blow dryer located on the
sink in front of the bathroom mirror;
r. Photographs taken of the scene depict items of female clothing on the bathroom
floor near the tub. No blood was found on this clothing. Photographs taken of the scene and
later forensic analysis confirm an absence of blood evidence on these items;
s. Photographs taken of the scene depict dishes in the sink that appear to be dirty
with egg salad, as well as a bowl of egg salad in the refrigerator.
297. JOHNSON returned to the Truman residence for approximately two hours in the early
morning, and aided in the stringing and analyses of the blood evidence. JOHNSON contacted
Scott Finch, an investigator with the Utah County Attorneys Office in order to aid Doug
Squire, an investigator with the Utah County Sheriffss Office, in the analysis.
298. The Log indicates that JOHNSON arrived on scene at 5:30 a.m. and left at 7:38 a.m.
299. The Log indicates that JOHNSON again returned at 8:47 a.m. and left at 8:53 a.m.
300. WALLACE noted in his police report that before he released the scene: I made a hand
sketch of the upstairs area where Heidy was located and I pulled measurements with a tape
measure. WALLACE later verified under oath that he pulled the measurements of the house
with a hand tape measure, fixed points through the entire house; that he pulled it the best
[he] could with what we had at the scene; and that he did so because he was curious to see how
far Heidy had actually traveled to be where she was found by medics and police.
43
301. No other officer has written a report or testified in any manner indicating that any other
person but WALLACE was responsible for helping to measure or produce scene diagrams in
any way.
302. Based upon WALLACEs view and processing of the scene, WALLACE reports that
he became suspicious of Conrad because: It appeared unlikely Heidy Truman had shot herself
in the head (intentionally or accidentally) and walked approximately 12.5 feet to where she had
fallen.
SUMMARY OF THE SUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
303. For the next several months, WALLACE investigated this case as a homicide.
304. Although WALLACE claims to have investigated suicide as a cause of Heidys death,
there is no evidence that suicide was investigated in any real manner.
305. Within the first hours after Heidys death, Heidys side of the family (Wagner Family)
was informed as to the officers belief that Conrad shot and murdered their loved one.
Members of Heidys family immediately began contacting Heidys close friends.
306. In the days following Heidys death, WALLACE and other officers, including Officers
Josh Adams, Brad Rich, and others, contacted Heidys employer (Air Liquide, in Lehi, Utah),
co-workers, and friends, and explicitly or inferentially communicated to them that Heidys
death was suspicious and that it was not self-inflicted. Several of these witnesses revealed that
they had already been contacted by members of the Wagner family.
307. On October 4, 2012, WALLACE met with all Detectives and officers involved in the
case; discussed the case as a group, and WALLACE compiled a list of tasks needing to be done
in this case. WALLACE assigned the tasks to himself and other officers and detectives in the
44
Orem investigations division. Of note, the only apparent task not assigned was the task of scene
diagrams.
308. Also on October 4, 2012, RUIZ and other Orem City Officers sought the assistance of
Heidys brother-in-law, Jason Keller, to surreptitiously record Conrad and confront him with
killing Heidy. No warrant was obtained for this intrusion into Conrads home even though Mr.
Keller worked as an agent of the police.
309. In the days following Heidys death, WALLACE sought a warrant to bug the casket at
Heidys funeral.16
310. In the days following Heidys death, WALLACE made arrangements to locate an out-
of-state facility to analyze the GSR samples that had been collected the night of Heidy
Trumans death.
311. In the following days, weeks, and months, WALLACE and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE
DOE enlisted the aid of members of the Wagner family and friends of Heidy to communicate
with Conrad and get him to makes statements about Heidys death.
312. In the following days, weeks, and months, a bevy of search warrants and investigative
subpoenas were obtained which sought a variety of information, including financial and
insurance documentation relating to the Truman couple. As set forth below, each and every
warrant and investigative subpoena sought and authorized in this case was invalid since it was
not based upon the requisite showing of probable or good cause, and further, because the
affidavit in support of the warrant or investigative subpoena contained material false and
16
As set forth below, this warrant was invalid since it was not based upon the requisite showing
of probable cause, and further, because the affidavit in support contained several false and misleading
statements or omissions made knowingly or in reckless disregard for the truth.
45
misleading statements or omissions made knowingly or in reckless disregard for the truth.
313. It appears that most, if not all, of these warrant and investigative subpoena affidavits
were reviewed, approved for presentation to a court, and/or presented to a court by JOHNSON.
In reviewing and authorizing presentation to a court, JOHNSON presumably gave advice to the
Affiant, usually WALLACE.
314. Officers served multiple warrants regarding Conrad at his place of employment, on his
home, and sought to question him further. Officers continual contacts of Conrad and his work
amounted to harassment.
315. Physical evidence seized from the scene was forensically analyzed for blood stains,
DNA, serology, fingerprints, and ballistics.
316. The gun inflicting the fatal shot was determined to be the black-handled gun; this black-
handled gun was test fired.
317. Documentary records obtained from the various warrants and administrative
subpoenas were reviewed and analyzed.
318. WALLACE kept in regular communication with the Wagner Family, and specifically,
Janet Wagner, Heidys mother.
319. WALLACE kept in communication with insurance representatives, and requested to be
notified when any claims were made for Heidys death benefits.
320. On November 27, 2012, WALLACE wrote in his police report that the couple did not
appear to be suffering any financial problems prior to Heidys death.
321. With regard to the death benefits and insurance Heidy held through her employment, Air
Liquide:
46
a. WALLACE was notified and made aware that Conrad had not claimed any
benefits;
b. WALLACE was notified and made aware that on December 20, 2012, Janet
Wagner called the benefits representatives and advised:
i. that her daughter had died as the result of a domestic violence homicide;
ii. that they were waiting for an autopsy report because the autopsy said
undetermined even though everybody knew it was homicide including the lead detective;
iii. everybody knew that the husband killed her;
iv. That the husband would be charged in the next couple of months and
that attorneys would be involved shortly; and
v. that she wanted to know how to freeze the benefits.
c. WALLACE was notified and made aware that on December 26, 2012, the day
after Christmas, Conrad called explaining that he received some insurance paperwork and was
asking about it:
i. The call responder advised Conrad that he needed to call the Hartford
which was the insurance company;
ii. Conrad then proceeded to talk about how Christmas was hard this year
and that it was just a really bad year;
iii. Conrad didnt set up a claim at this time, and didnt inquire how to do so.
d. WALLACE was notified and made aware that multiple attempts were made to
contact Conrad concerning the benefits and Conrad had not responded;
e. WALLACE was notified and made aware that Conrad never made any claims
47
for the benefits available from Heidys employment.
322. With regard to the death benefits and insurance Conrad held through his employment,
ICU Medical:
a. WALLACE contacted the human resources and benefits manager, Ms. Linda
Nacarrato, on multiple occasions;
b. On one occasion in February 2013, WALLACE was informed and made aware
that Conrad had not made any claims for death benefits as a result of Heidys death;
c. WALLACE requested that Ms. Nacarrato get Conrad to submit the claim forms
for death benefits from his employment;
d. Ms. Nacarrato did so;
e. WALLACE was contacted in April 2013 and informed that Conrad had
submitted a claim form for death benefits.
323. WALLACE also spoke with Mr. John Engh, a financial planner referred to the Trumans
through Conrads work. WALLACE was told and made aware from Mr. Engh:
a. That the couple was doing well financially;
b. That Conrad had just cashed-in and sold a significant amount of company stock,
and was looking for advice as to where to invest it;
c. That Mr. Engh suggested a whole life insurance policy as a cash accumulation
vehicle;
d. That Conrad actually resisted the whole life policy and did not think it was a
good idea;
48
e. That Conrad actually told Mr. Engh that the couple did not want to sign up for
insurance at that time;
f. That Mr. Engh coaxed the couple, however, and they agreed to at least get the
medical check-up scheduled for October 6, 2012 (the week after Heidys death).
324. The OCPD, WALLACE and JOHNSON, also hired experts from Englert Forensic
Consultants, from the state of Oregon. (the Englert team).
325. The Englert team flew to Utah in the end of May 2013 for three days to further
investigate, review evidence, consult, and meet with WALLACE, JOHNSON, other law
enforcement officers from the OCPD, and other investigators.
326. On May 30, 2013, the Englert team and a number of law enforcement officers went to
Conrads residence and conducted a scene reconstruction during which re-enactment
photographs were produced.
327. In order to gain entry into Conrads residence, WALLACE sought and obtained a
search warrant.17
328. Also in executing this particular warrant, WALLACE and the others present including
JOHNSON, CROOK, and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE unreasonably and without cause or
necessity broke through Conrads front door causing damage to Conrads property. The
unreasonable execution of this warrant was based, in part, on the fact that WALLACE briefed
and falsely told executing officers that CONRAD was threatening and would pose an officer
safety risk.
17
As set forth below, this warrant was invalid since it was not based upon the requisite showing
of probable cause, and further, because the affidavit in support contained several false and misleading
material statements or omissions made knowingly or in reckless disregard for the truth.
49
329. During the scene reconstruction, CROOK led a walk-through where police officers (a
male and a female) of the same height and build as Conrad and Heidy were placed in the
positions as purportedly observed by CROOK.
330. CROOK then directed these actors to walk through what he purportedly witnessed the
evening of Heidy Trumans death as photographs were taken. (Sampling of Englert
Reconstruction Photographs attached cumulatively in Exhibit A).
331. Among others, Officers CROOK, WALLACE, RUIZ, and Pikus were present, as well as
JOHNSON and investigators Doug Squire, Ed Spann, and Scott Finch.
332. During this time in the home, Ed Spann, from the Attorney Generals investigation
bureau, and other officers also took 360-degree photographs of the residence.18
333. On May 31, 2013, after three days of investigation, the Englert team met with members
of law enforcement and the Utah County Attorneys Office and demonstrated and summarized
their findings and opinions.
334. According to police reports, WALLACE, JOHNSON, Deputy Utah County Attorney
Tim Taylor, and OCPD Captain Jackson were present.
335. Neither WALLACE nor any other person wrote a report summarizing the specifics of
this meeting and the Englert teams demonstrated findings and conclusions.
336. No recordings, notes, reports, or other documentation was preserved or disclosed
summarizing the specifics of this meeting and the Englert teams demonstrated findings and
conclusions.
18
Although these photographs were not accurate representations of the area and were wildly
misleading, they were admitted in the first trial. The Englert photographs were not.
50
337. WALLACE has since testified during trial number two that the Englert team found:
a. That the blood spatter found on Conrads shirt was consistent with the aspirated
blood Crook saw when Conrad tried CPR;
b. That the scene was too bloody and contaminated to make any definitive
conclusions;
c. That the Englert team could not form any opinion as to where Conrad was
located when Heidy was shot;
d. That the Englert team could not form any opinion as to exactly where Heidy was
located when shot.
WARRANTS AND INVESTIGATIVE SUBPOENAS
338. Throughout the investigation, WALLACE intentionally, knowingly, or with reckless
disregard for the truth, submitted countless false and misleading sworn statements to a court of
law in order to obtain warrants, investigative subpoenas, and ultimately, to support arresting and
charging Conrad Truman.
339. Although the number of warrants or subpoena affidavits were not disclosed, by
WALLACEs own count, this case consisted of 23 search warrants, 37 investigative
subpoenas, and one arrest warrant.
340. JOHNSON gave advice and approved most, if not all, of these affidavits for filing to
support warrant applications or investigative subpoenas.
341. A number of the affidavits include the following statement: This affidavit has been
reviewed by Craig Johnson of the Utah County Attorneys Office, and it has been approved for
presentation to the Court.
51
342. Each and every one of the numerous affidavits sworn to by WALLACE, approved by
JOHNSON, and submitted to a court:
a. Did not establish the requisite showing of probable cause; and/or
b. Contains false and misleading statements and/or omissions made intentionally,
knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth.
c. Consequently, each and every warrants and investigative subpoena was invalid
and the resulting search and seizures violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and Article I, Section 14 of the Utah Constitution.
343. By way of summarizing the general themes and repeated facts which WALLACE
mischaracterized, misstated or omitted from the affidavits, the following material
mischaracterizations and omissions pervaded the affidavits in support:
a. Misstatements, Mischaracterizations and/or Omissions Regarding the

Scene, the Size and Location of Heidy Trumans Body, and the Location or
Condition of Other Material Pieces of Evidence.
i. Several sworn statements in affidavits aver in some manner that Heidys

body was found approximately 12 feet from the bathroom, where Conrad
said she was shot; and that Heidy did not shoot herself in the head and
then walk 12 feet as she would have fallen to the ground immediately
wherever the shot was inflicted.
TRUTH: These statements are both materially false and

misleading as Heidys body was not found 12 feet from the
bathroom; Heidy fell within approximately one foot from the
hallway area from where the shot was heard; and Conrad never
stated as fact that Heidy was shot in the bathroom.
These statements were made intentionally, knowingly, or with

reckless disregard for the truth.
52
ii. Several sworn statements in affidavits aver in some manner that the
black-handled gun (the gun that killed Heidy) was lying on the kitchen
floor over 10 feet away from Heidys body when first seen by law
enforcement.

misleading as the black-handled gun was actually reported to be
seen near Heidys body; and the black-handled gun was not 10
feet away from Heidys body but at most, within three feet.

iii. Several sworn statements in affidavits aver in some manner that there
was no evidence to support that Heidy had been shot in the hallway or
bathroom and go on to explain that an alternative light source was used
and there was no blood spatter marks anywhere else in the home, and that
there was no blood trail leading away from or towards any other rooms in
the home.

misleading because evidence did exist to support that Heidy had
been shot in the hallway area, including the presence of the casing
in the hallway, the location of Heidy Trumans body within
approximately a foot of the hallway area, and the actual presence
of blood evidence in the hallway area.

iv. Several sworn statements in affidavits aver in some manner that there
was no water on the shower curtain or floors, and that the tub was not
drained but there was no debris in the water. These statements implied
that Heidy was not really in the tub or shower and that Conrad was lying.
TRUTH: These statements are materially false and misleading

and omit the facts that the area wasnt searched until several
hours later leaving time for air moisture and items to dry; that
police reports document and witnesses stated that the bathroom
felt humid; Heidys body was wet as if she had just been in the
shower; that the shower curtain was outside of the tub and that the
tub was full as if someone had been bathing; that soap and
shampoo bottle caps were in the open position; that there was
plugged in hair dryer laying on the bathroom sink; that there was
53
a dirt splotch in the water as can be seen from photographs; that

nobody tested the water or the razors nearby; and that
observations had been made that Heidys legs had been partially
shaved.
These statements and omissions were made intentionally,

b. Misstatements, Mischaracterizations and/or Omissions Regarding Autopsy

Findings.
i. Several sworn statements in affidavits aver in some manner that based on

the findings of the autopsy, Heidy Trumans fatal gun shot wound was
fired while the handgun was pressed against the right side of her cranium.
The firearm was pressed against her head with so much pressure that
there were no powder burns on the outside of her head.
TRUTH: These statements are both materially misleading and

false as the autopsy report and other reports establish that, despite
Heidys long thick hair, apparent soot was found around the
wound margins and on the skull, although there was no muzzle
imprint pattern located.
Also, the autopsy findings evidence only a contact wound but

do not speak to the force or pressure applied to the head when
the gun was fired, or the identity of the person who applied the
force. For probable cause purposes, the fact that Heidys injury
was a contact wound to the temple is not probable cause of
homicide, but rather, consistent with suicide since suicides are
statistically far more likely to be contact wounds than homicides
are, and shots to the temple are the most common means of
gunshot suicide.

ii. Several sworn statements in affidavits aver in some manner that Heidys
autopsy revealed she died from a gunshot wound to the right side of her
head, about 5 inches above the ear, which would have made it difficult
for Heidy to reach to and hold the firearm firmly to avoid the powder
burns on the exterior of her cranium.

false. The Medical Examiners Report documents that the
54
entrance wound was to Heidys right temple, 7 centimeters (or

2.75 inches) above and 3 centimeters in front of her ear canal.
This is essentially at the temple, an area not difficult to reach, and
an area highly consistent with a self inflicted wound.

iii. Several sworn statements in affidavits aver in some manner that the State
Medical Examiner officially said that due to extensive brain injury,
Heidy would not have been able to walk at all after the wound was
inflicted and would have immediately fallen to the ground.
TRUTH: This statement is false and misleading as Heidy could

have traveled one-to-two steps and would have fallen within a
few feet of where shot.

c. Misstatements, Mischaracterizations and/or Omissions Regarding Conrads

General Statements and Behavior.
i. Several sworn statements in affidavits aver in some manner that Truman

behaved in an unusual manner and therefore, must have killed Heidy.
ii. Although initially properly describing Truman as hysterical in warrant

affidavits prepared the night of Heidys death, later sworn statements
characterize Truman as threatening and belligerent.
iii. Some sworn statements set forth the 911 dispatchers expert opinion
that in her years of experience, Conrad obstructed any lifesaving help
that she had been trained to provide:
TRUTH: These statements are false and misleading. An actual

review of the 911 recording confirms that Truman was hysterical
and almost incomprehensible. It is evident that Truman was
panicking over the amount of blood that he saw and exhibited
desperation that Heidy would die if help did not arrive. Truman
responded, however, to the majority of the operators questions,
many of which she repeated after Truman answered them. After
obtaining the necessary information, the dispatcher told Truman
to go outside and flag down the responders. He complied. There is
55
just nothing Truman did or said which prevented lifesaving

measures and the dispatchers statement was untrue.
WALLACE specifically asked the 911 dispatcher to author a

report, the dispatcher had been sanctioned for making false
reports, and these statements and omissions were made
intentionally, knowingly, and/or with reckless disregard for the
truth.
iv. All of the sworn statements faulting Conrads behavior omit the context
of the situation and fail to disclose that Conrad was obviously
traumatized, hysterical, had been drinking, was unable to track
conversations or make a timeline, and believed that medical personnel
were not moving quickly enough to save his wife.
These statements and omissions concerning Conrads behavior

were made intentionally, knowingly, or with reckless disregard
for the truth.
v. All of the sworn statements faulting Conrads behavior also omit the fact
that some of Conrads frustration came from officers refusing to take him
to the hospital to be with his dying wife, refusing to call or let him call
anyone to come help or support him, and refusing to let him calm or free
his dogs that were incessantly barking.

for the truth.
vi. The mischaracterizations and/or omissions concerning Conrads behavior

are varied and run rampant within the sworn statements submitted under
oath to a court.

for the truth.
d. Misstatements, Mischaracterizations and/or Omissions Regarding Conrads

Statements and/or Inconsistent Statements.
i. Specific to Trumans purported inconsistent statements, several sworn

statements in affidavits aver in some manner that Conrad gave multiple
stories that are blatant examples of Conrads dishonesty.
56
ii. These sworn statements contain innumerable false claims and

mischaracterizations about specific statements purportedly made by
Truman and the context within which he said them.
iii. Several sworn statements in affidavits aver in some manner that Conrad
made Inconsistent Statements.

false as Conrad gave a consistent rendition of the material facts.

iv. Several sworn statements in affidavits aver in some manner that Conrad
made these inconsistent statements as statements of fact.
TRUTH: These statements are materially misleading and false

and omit the known truth that Conrad was not making statements
of fact, but was questioning what had happened while repeatedly
exclaiming he did not know what happened and that he did not
know how to explain the events he saw.

v. Several sworn statements in affidavits aver in some manner that Conrad

made inconsistent statements regarding the location from where he saw
Heidy standing when Conrad explains he heard the pop sound.
TRUTH: These statements are materially misleading and false

and omit the fact that the area in the Truman home where these
events took place is very small, and as such, the exact same place
can be described in different ways.

vi. Several sworn statements in affidavits aver in some manner that Conrad
claimed he saw another person, or specifically a black man, run out of
the house.
TRUTH: These statements are not only materially misleading

and false, but omit the clear fact that Conrad specifically told
police numerous times that there was no one else in the home who
57
could have shot his wife, and in fact stated that theres no way
someone could have come into the home when Conrad wasnt
looking.

e. Misstatements, Mischaracterizations and/or Omissions Regarding Life

Insurance and Financial Assets.
i. Statements as to a financial motive pervaded affidavits and sworn

statements and were replete with false statements and omissions
concerning this topic.
ii. Several sworn statements in affidavits aver in some manner to a general

financial motive for murder and list a number of life insurance policies
and benefits the couple held. Some statements aver that pecuniary gain
is the primary motive in Conrads killing of Heidy.
TRUTH: These statements are false and misleading and generally

omit the facts that Conrad did not know about all of these
policies; did not make any claims for the vast majority of the
insurance proceeds and death benefits; and that the couple had
ample financial assets.

iii. The Arrest Warrant Affidavit and the probable cause statement in the
Information allege that there was no reason for the Trumans to be
purchasing more life insurance, as they were in the midst of doing when
Heidy died.
TRUTH: These statements are materially false because the

Trumans were not seeking to purchase more life insurance, but
were seeking an investment vehicle to put the proceeds from
Conrads recent sale of stock; additionally, Conrad did not want
to purchase life insurance and actively resisted the urging of the
financial planner.

58
iv. Some sworn statements aver that Mr. John Engh, a financial planner and
the person who had met with the Trumans about insurance, told the
police that Conrad wanted more than $300,000 in life insurance on
Heidy because Heidy had none, and he wanted her insured in case of an
accident.
TRUTH: These statements are materially false, as attested to by

John Engh himself. Conrad made no such statements; nor did Mr.
Engh. Mr. Engh wholly acknowledges that Engh was the one
who suggested the Whole Life Policy and Conrad was the one
who was hesitant; Mr. Engh confirms that Conrad was not
seeking to "increase coverage on his wife" but was seeking
investment advice, not another insurance policy; the actual
amounts Engh suggested were $350,000.00 for Conrad and
$200,000.00 for Heidy; and Conrad never told Engh that Heidy
had no life insurance or that he needed to insure her in case of
an accident.

v. Some sworn statements aver that Wallace located several voice mails on
Conrad Trumans cell phone which were from an insurance agent the
week of Heidy's death, confirming the purchase of new life insurance.
TRUTH: These statements were materially false as attested to by

John Engh himself. The several voice mails from the insurance
agent confirming the purchase of new life insurance was John
Engh, and he was not confirming any such purchase, but was
trying to convince hesitant Conrad to move forward.

f. Misstatements, Mischaracterizations and/or Omissions Regarding Blood

Evidence.
i. Several sworn statements in affidavits, including the Arrest Warrant

affidavit, aver in some manner and try to evoke a horror scene and
describe: There was a large amount of blood on Conrads person, and
blood was found on the stairs, front entry way to the home, several walls
and in the living room on the couches, bedroom wall and bathroom wall.
TRUTH: These statements are materially misleading and omit
59
actual reasons for the substantial amount of blood present

consistent with Conrads innocence and role as an innocent
bystander. This omitted information includes the known facts
that: 1) Conrad was bloody from trying to resuscitate his wife
who was bleeding profusely; 2) Conrad told police he went to the
bathroom to look for a towel (thus explaining the blood transfer
on the bathroom wall); 3) Conrad told police he went to the
bedroom to get a phone (thus explaining blood transfer on the
bedroom door and on the phone charger in that area); 4) Conrad
had been ordered by the dispatcher to go outside to meet the
police, had gone back into the bloody kitchen to be with Heidy,
had been ordered by the police to put one of his bloody dogs in
the bedroom, had been ordered back to the living room, was told
to sit down on the couch, and had been taken twice to the
downstairs bathroom to restrain another dog and to wash his
hands (thus explaining bloody footprints on the stairs, and blood
transfers in those areas); 5) The knees of Conrads pants were
soaked with blood because he had knelt in the blood pool in an
effort to render aid to his wife; 6) As first responders removed
Heidy from the scene, her blood continued to drip in the kitchen
area, into the dog bowls, down the stairs, and outside; 7) When
Conrad was made to stay in the living room area, covered in
blood and had blood in his mouth from his efforts to save Heidy,
he kept spitting into a trash can in the corner and ultimately wiped
his face on a helmet bag hanging from a hook in the entry way.
Overall, the truth was that Conrad, dogs, police officers, and
medical personnel all tracked blood throughout the house.

ii. Several sworn statements in affidavits aver in some manner that there
was no evidence to support that Heidy had been shot in the hallway or
bathroom; explain that an alternative light source was used and there
was no blood spatter anywhere else in the home, and that there was no
blood trail leading away from or towards any other rooms in the home.
TRUTH: These statement are both materially false and

misleading because evidence did exists to support that Heidy had
been shot in the hallway area, and there was also blood evidence
that existed in the hallway area.

60
g. Misstatements, Mischaracterizations and/or Omissions Regarding the

Firearms.
i. Several sworn statements in affidavits aver in some manner that the

black-handled gun (the gun that killed Heidy) was lying on the kitchen
floor over 10 feet away from Heidys body when first seen by law
enforcement.

misleading as the black-handled gun was reported to be seen
near or next to Heidys body prior to the time Crook kicked it
under the kitchen table.

ii. The Arrest Warrant Affidavit specifically avers that the holstered silver-
handled gun located on the kitchen table was later found to have blood
and tissue in the crease near the trigger.
TRUTH: This statement is materially false and appears to be

based upon the unverified and untested suggestion of the Englert
team. The Utah State Crime lab re-checked this gun for human
tissue and blood and concluded that any suspected substance was
actually probably glue from the manufacturer.

iii. The Arrest Warrant Affidavit specifically avers that the black-handled
gun had an extended magazine to provide for a larger hand, inferring that
the death weapon was Conrads and he was lying about ownership.
TRUTH: This statement is materially false and misleading and

attempted to identify Conrad as the owner and user of the black
handled gun; the statement also omitted the material facts that
Conrad had explained that Heidys gun was the same make and
model as his mothers (which was the same black-handled gun);
that both Heidys and Conrads guns were the same make and
model; that both Heidys and Conrads guns had extended clips
that were interchangeable; and that use of an extension clip is
irrelevant to hand-size.
61

iv. Several sworn statements in affidavits aver in some manner that Conrad
denied or was evasive about the existence of two guns in the kitchen,
attempting to show a consciousness of guilt.
TRUTH: These statements are materially false and misleading,

and omit the material fact that Officer Crook surreptitiously slid
the black-handled gun under the table and that Crook himself
acknowledged his belief that Conrad was unaware of it.
Additionally, Conrad was anything but evasive and talked

freely of both the holstered gun he took off the printer table and
tossed on the chair; talked of Heidys gun, which he kept asking
to show police where he believed it to be, in the bedroom on the
night stand next to Heidys side of the bed; and explained to
police of the whereabouts of the numerous firearms in the house
and in the vehicles.

h. Misstatements, Mischaracterizations and/or Omissions Regarding 94-

second Phone Call.
i. Several sworn statements in affidavits aver in some manner that Conrad

had a 94-second phone conversation with Heidy eleven minutes before
her death, and that Conrad was lying and being evasive in not
remembering it.
TRUTH: These statement are materially false and misleading and

omit the material facts that the phone records establish this was
not a completed call; that Heidy did not answer the call, but
instead rejected it and that it went to voicemail; and that Heidy
and Conrad did not have a phone conversation in the moments
before the fatal shot.
Cell phone records also establish that the voicemail was retrieved
by Heidys phone approximately three minutes before the 911 call
was placed. Heidys cell phone was located in the master
bedroom, on Heidys side of the bed, within arms reach of the
night stand where her black-handled gun was kept.
62
Therefore, Conrads responses to questions about a completed call

or conversations with Heidy were not ones of evasiveness, but
responses of surprise and confusion since he knew that he did not
speak with Heidy on the phone.

i. Misstatements, Mischaracterizations and/or Omissions Regarding Conrads

Refusal to Cooperate.
i. Several sworn statements in affidavits aver in some manner that Conrad

refused to cooperate with officers, especially Detective Wallace. Such
statements include averments that Conrad would not return any phone
calls, and was not willing to speak with officers.
TRUTH: These statement are materially false and misleading and

omit the fact that Conrad was cooperative with officers; he
submitted to questioning with Detective Wallace and other
officers on repeated occasions; and the affidavits also omitted that
Conrad agreed to meet with Wallace on the 19th of October, but
that it was Wallace who cancelled the meeting.

ii. Several affidavits also mischaracterized the interviews Conrad did give.
For example, with regard to the interview Wallace and another officer
had with Truman at his place of employment, sworn statements allege
that Conrad immediately became defensive and would talk with
[Wallace] when the time was right. Some said that when asked when the
time would be right, he said no time would be right.
TRUTH: These statement are materially false and misleading.

Conrad spoke to the two detectives courteously for a lengthy
period of time before Conrad expressed he would rather talk away
from work; the officers continued pressing for details of the
evening, as Conrad kept asking them to call him and talk to him
outside of work; eventually, Conrad candidly told Wallace that he
did not trust them, particularly after Officer Crook had called him
a liar and a murderer; and Conrad even agreed to go to Wallaces
office and meet the very next day.
63

344. False statements, mischaracterizations, and omissions pervade each and every affidavit
in this case, and stem beyond those categories summarized above.
345. Each and every affidavit, when looked at individually, contains misstatement,
mischaracterizations, and/or omissions which vitiate any plausible showing of probable cause.
MISHANDLING, MANUFACTURING, AND FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE
346. Throughout the investigation, WALLACE, CROOK, LOPEZ, OFFICER(S) JOHN/
JANE DOE, and at times JOHNSON and ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, mishandled
evidence, failed to preserve material evidence, at times concealed or altered evidence, and at
times manufactured or fabricated evidence and testimony, which was then used to support the
arrest, charging, incarceration, and prosecution of Conrad Truman for murder and obstruction
of justice.
347. Upon information and belief, CITY and the OCPD failed to properly train officers,
including but not limited to all DEFENDANT OFFICERS and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE
DOES 1-10, in the proper handling of evidence, the proper reporting of police activity, proper
interview and interrogations techniques, the exercise of diligence and truthfulness in
investigation, the disclosure of investigation findings to the prosecution and to the defense in
criminal proceedings, and in ensuring the presentation of truthful, accurate and complete
testimony and evidence under oath.
348. Instead, and upon information and belief, CITY and the OCPD have created an
institutional culture supporting and encouraging constitutional violations such as those alleged
64
herein and, in so doing, directly and materially contributed to, and proximately caused, the
violations described herein.
349. With regard to the GSR evidence, the following mishandling and/or fabrication of
evidence occurred during the investigative stages of this case:
a. Officers directed Truman to wash his hands the evening of Heidys death prior to
swabbing them for gunshot residue. Specifically:
i. Before any person took GSR samples from Conrads hands, LOPEZ, told
Truman: Conrad, lets go wash your hands, and walked him to the bathroom where they
washed his hands together;
ii. WALLACE admits that LOPEZ allowed Conrad to wash his hands;
iii. CROOK admits to hearing another officer say to Conrad: hey, lets get
your hands washed;
iv. LOPEZ washed, or allowed Conrad to wash his hands even though his
sergeant, Sgt. FERRE expressly stated not to;
v. In washing Trumans hands, LOPEZ destroyed and/or failed to preserve
exculpatory evidence Conrads preserved hands and an opportunity to demonstrate that his
hands were free of GSR prior to washing;
vi. In being aware and failing to stop Conrads hand washing, LOPEZ,
CROOK, FERRE and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, allowed the destruction of and/or failed
to preserve exculpatory evidence Conrads preserved hands and an opportunity to demonstrate
that his hands were free of GSR prior to washing;
vii. This single act by law enforcement in failing to preserve Conrads hands
65
prior to swabbing them for GSR, completely destroyed Conrads ability to show, without
question or speculation, that he did not discharge the firearm that killed his wife.
b. LOPEZ and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE then fabricated evidence and
testimony and tried to blame Conrad for manipulating the scene. Specifically,
i. While Conrad was being detained at the home, he tried to follow orders
so that officers would take him to the hospital to see Heidy;
ii. Trying to convince the officers he had nothing to do with Heidys
condition, he expressed to officers to please test his hands and his gun for GSR, because he
hadnt shot a gun. Conrads statements can be heard in the audio recordings;
iii. Knowing that they failed to preserve evidence by washing Conrads
hands, LOPEZ, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, and with the aid of JOHNSON and
WALLACE, fabricated testimony that Conrad calculatingly asked to wash his hands, and then
only after doing so, then requested that his hands be tested for gunshot residue knowing his
hands were clean;
iv. This fabricated testimony and evidence does not comport with the police
reports, the recordings, and other evidence in the case.
c. Additional GSR samples were also lost or destroyed. More specifically:
i. GSR samples were taken from Heidys bagged hands during the autopsy;
GSR samples were taken from Conrads hands by evidence technician Pikus at some point at
the hospital;
ii. WALLACE testified under oath that GSR samples were also taken from
the pantry door, the bathroom door, and the master bedroom door;
66
iii. WALLACE also remembered GSR samples being taken from Conrads
shirt, and maybe his pants;
iv. WALLACE testified under oath that none of the GSR samples that had
been taken were analyzed prior to trial number one;
v. The evidence custodian, Patricia Pikus, only retained the GSR samples
taken from the hands of Conrad and Heidy Truman;
vi. The missing GSR samples from the doors could have shown GSR
particles on the doorways in the back area of the home consistent with the firearm discharge in
that location as Conrad explained all along, thus establishing that Conrad was not a liar and did
not tell inconsistent stories as depicted by law enforcement and the prosecutors.
d. Rather than acknowledge the mishandling and/or loss of material GSR evidence
here, WALLACE, JOHNSON, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE and ATTORNEY(S)
JOHN/JANE DOE then fabricated evidence and testimony as to why the GSR samples were not
sent for testing. More specifically,
i. WALLACE, JOHNSON, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE and
ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE concocted the false evidence and justification that the GSR
samples were not sent for analysis because GSR analysis is not a very viable forensic tool, GSR
analysis cant tell you much, and nobody tests anymore and would not accept the samples;
ii. Contrary to the general thrust of the false justification, GSR analysis
remains a viable forensics tool; the protocol at the time was to take GSR samples on shooting
cases; although the Utah State Crime lab no longer conducts some GSR analysis, out of State
laboratories continue to analyze GSR samples;
67
iii. Indeed, in a prosecution that occurred at the same time as Conrads case,
attorneys from the Utah County attorneys Office, through Doug Squire, introduced GSR
analysis during the trial of that case;
iv. Conrad and his counsel were apprized on the day before trial number one
that the GSR samples had never been sent for analysis, and Conrad and his counsel were not
apprized prior to trial number one as to the fabricated justification why;
v. Only at trial number one was the fabricated justifications sprung on
Conrad without notice or an opportunity to defend.
350. With regard to financial motive, the following mishandling and/or fabrication of
evidence occurred during the investigative stages of this case:
a. During the investigation, WALLACE, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, and
ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE interviewed witnesses and reviewed financial records and
other documents which established that the Trumans were not struggling financially but, in
fact, had tens of thousands of dollars in a number of joint and individual savings, checking, and
retirement accounts. Despite this, WALLACE, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, and
ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE fabricated testimony and evidence suggesting that the
Trumans were struggling financially and did not have enough money to pay their bills;
b. On 11/27/12, at 12:22:32-38 MST, WALLACE authored a police report
specifically stating that the Trumans did not appear to be suffering any financial problems
prior to Heidys death. At some point in the weeks or months thereafter, WALLACE illegally
altered that very same report dated 11/27/12, with the very same time of 12:22:32-38 MST, and
deleted any reference to the lack of financial problems. WALLACE altered this police report
68
and specifically deleted the statement as to a lack of financial motive, changing the language to
reflect further review was upcoming;19
c. During the investigation, WALLACE, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, and
ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE interviewed witnesses and reviewed financial records and
other documents which established that Conrad was not seeking to buy more life insurance, and
in fact, Conrad was resisting any such purchase;
d. Despite the truth, WALLACE, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, and with the
knowledge, approval and/or advice of JOHNSON and ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE,
fabricated testimony and evidence suggesting:
i. that Mr. John Engh, a financial planner, told the police that Conrad
sought more than $300,000 in life insurance on Heidy because Heidy had none, and that Conrad
wanted Heidy insured in case of an accident. This evidence is wholly false and fabricated as
attested to by Mr. John Engh;
ii. that there was no reason for the Trumans to be purchasing more life
insurance, as they were in the midst of doing when Heidy died. This evidence is wholly false
and fabricated as attested to by Mr. John Engh;
19
WALLACES action in altering his police report may constitute a multitude of state offenses.
See, e.g., Utah Code Ann. 76-8-511 (A person is guilty of a class B misdemeanor if under
circumstances not amounting to an offense subject to a greater penalty . . .the person:(1) knowingly
makes a false entry in or false alteration of anything belonging to, received, or kept by the government for
information or record, or required by law to be kept for information of the government... [or] intentionally
destroys, conceals, or otherwise impairs the verity or availability of the information or records); Utah
Code Ann. 76-8-201 (A public servant is guilty of a class B misdemeanor if, with an intent to benefit
himself or another or to harm another, he knowingly commits an unauthorized act which purports to be an
act of his office, or knowingly refrains from performing a duty imposed on him by law or clearly inherent
in the nature of his office); Utah Code Ann. 76-8-203 (A person is guilty of unofficial misconduct if
the person exercises . . . any of the functions of a public office when the person: . . . knowingly withholds
or retains from his successor in office or other person entitled to . . . any records, papers, documents, or
other writings appertaining or belonging to his office or mutilates or destroys or takes away the same).
69
iii. that several voice mails were located on Conrads cell phone which were
from an insurance agent the week of Heidy's death, confirming the purchase of new life
insurance on Conrad and Heidy Truman. This evidence is wholly false and fabricated as
attested to by Mr. John Engh.
e. Despite the known lack of financial motive, WALLACE and OFFICER(S)
JOHN/JANE DOE, and with the knowledge, approval and/or advice of JOHNSON and
ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, advanced the fabricated financial motive under oath in
affidavits as the reason why Conrad killed Heidy;
f. Despite the known lack of financial motive, WALLACE, RUIZ, and
JOHNSON, advanced the fabricated financial motive to Dr. Leis as the reason why Conrad
killed Heidy;
g. Despite the known lack of financial motive, WALLACE, and with the
knowledge, approval and/or advice of JOHNSON and ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE,
advanced the fabricated financial motive as a fundamental basis for Conrads arrest, charging,
and prosecution as the reason why Conrad killed Heidy;
h. Despite the known lack of financial motive, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE
advanced the fabricated financial motive to the media as the reason why Conrad killed Heidy.
i. Despite the known lack of financial motive, the fabricated financial motive was
presented to the trial court during the first trial proceedings;
j. Despite the known lack of financial motive, the fabricated financial motive was
presented to the jury during the first trial proceedings, and served as a basis for the jurys
conviction of Conrad in trial number one;
70
k. Despite the known lack of financial motive, the fabricated financial motive was
presented to the court during Conrads sentencing;
l. Despite the known lack of financial motive, the fabricated financial motive was
presented to public and the media on the Utah County Attorneys website as the reason why
Conrad killed Heidy;
m. Overall, the Trumans true and accurate financial picture was known to
WALLACE, JOHNSON, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE and ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE
DOE prior to the meeting with Dr. Leis; prior to the time Truman was charged and arrested for
murder based upon a financial motive; and prior to the time Conrad was arrested, charged,
incarcerated, and convicted based upon the fabricated financial motive.
351. With regard to distance Heidy traveled after she was shot, the following
mishandling and/or fabrication of evidence occurred during the investigative stages of this case:
a. Conrad consistently explained that when he was in the kitchen, he heard a door
open; after he heard the door open, he heard a pop sound; he then saw Heidy in the hallway
entrance area by the table with the printer, and it is from this area where she went to the ground;
b. Using dimensions and locations known to law enforcement, Heidys body, in
truth, was positioned less than one foot from the hallway entrance, exactly as Conrad
consistently explained;
c. Using dimensions and locations known to law enforcement, and in placing
Heidys body position accurately, her feet were close to the hallway entrance consistent to
where she would have fallen from a self-inflicted shot in that reported area;
d. CROOK and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE personally observed Heidys
71
location in the kitchen the evening of the incident, and knew and was fully aware that Heidy
was located very close to the hallway entrance just as Conrad explained and consistent to where
she would have fallen from a self-inflicted shot in that reported area;
e. In the investigative stage of the case, CROOK, WALLACE, JOHNSON and
OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE (to potentially include Pikus, Finch, and Squire) were present
at the Truman in the hours after the incident, aided in processing the scene, and knew and were
fully aware of the very smallness of the area;
f. In the investigative stage of the case, WALLACE, RUIZ, OFFICER(S) JOHN/
JANE DOE and ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE were put on notice of Heidy Trumans
correct distance from the hallway area through the hand sketched diagram and explanation
given by Jason Keller, Heidy Trumans brother in law, after he worked with RUIZ and agreed
to surreptitiously record Conrad on October 4, 2012;
g. In the investigative stage of the case, CROOK, WALLACE, RUIZ, JOHNSON
and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE (to potentially include Pikus, Finch, Squire and Spann)
were present in the Truman home on May 30, 2013, as CROOK directed a scene reconstruction
walk-through. Based upon their very presence and observation, they all knew and were fully
aware that Heidy was located close to the hallway entrance just as Conrad explained and
consistent to where she would have fallen from a self-inflicted shot in that reported area;
h. In the investigative stage of the case, CROOK, WALLACE, JOHNSON,
OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE and ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE reviewed the series of
photographs that were taken from the May 30, 2013 scene reconstruction and walk through.
These photographs definitively establish that Heidy was located very close to the hallway
72
entrance just as Conrad explained and consistent to where she would have fallen from a self-
inflicted shot in that reported area;
i. In the investigative stage of the case WALLACE, JOHNSON, ATTORNEY(S)
JOHN/JANE DOE (to potentially include Tim Taylor) and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE (to
potentially include Captain Jackson), were present during a meeting wherein the Englert Team
summarized its findings and concluded that they could not determine how or where Heidy
Truman was shot, where Heidy Truman was located when she was shot, and where Conrad
Truman was located when Heidy was shot;
j. Despite knowledge and awareness of the true and accurate location and size of
Heidy Trumans body, WALLACE, CROOK, JOHNSON, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE,
and ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE fabricated, aided, advised, and/or directed the
fabrication of evidence, testimony, diagrams and/or other depictions in order to corroborate a
false distance traveled in order to:
i. falsely suggest that the fatal gunshot wound could not have occurred in
the area as Conrad explained, thus calling him a liar and discounting his credibility; and
ii. to advance the wholly false argument that Heidys fatal wound could not
have been self-inflicted because Heidy could not have traveled 12-feet away after sustaining
such an injury.
k. Despite knowledge of the true and accurate location and size of Heidy Trumans
body, WALLACE and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE (to potentially include CROOK in
supplying false information), advanced the fabricated distance traveled evidence in affidavits
for warrants and investigative subpoenas to establish that Heidy could not have shot herself and
73
that Conrad was untruthful. JOHNSON reviewed a majority, if not all, of these affidavits,
warrant applications, and investigative subpoena applications containing the false evidence and
statements, and gave advice and authorized them for presentment to a court of law as evidenced
by the statement in a majority of the supporting affidavits: This affidavit has been reviewed by
Craig Johnson of the Utah County Attorneys Office, and it has been approved for presentation
to the Court;
l. Despite knowledge of the true and accurate location and size of Heidy Trumans
body, WALLACE, RUIZ, JOHNSON and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE advanced the
fabricated distance traveled evidence to Dr. Leis to establish that Heidy could not have shot
herself and that Conrad was untruthful. Defendants did so in order to secure the Deputy
Medical Examiners opinion that Heidy Trumans manner of death was homicide;
m. Despite knowledge of the true and accurate location and size of Heidy Trumans
body, WALLACE, JOHNSON, ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE and OFFICER(S)
JOHN/JANE DOE advanced the fabricated distance traveled evidence as the foundational
basis for Conrads arrest and prosecution to establish that Heidy could not have shot herself and
that Conrad was untruthful;
n. Despite knowledge of the true and accurate location and size of Heidy Trumans
body, WALLACE, CROOK, JOHNSON and ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE advanced the
fabricated distance traveled evidence as the foundational basis to establish probable cause at
the state preliminary hearing and was used by the state court to support bind-over;
o. Despite knowledge of the true and accurate location and size of Heidy Trumans
body, the fabricated distance traveled evidence was presented to the court and the jury during
74
the first trial proceedings, and served as one of the foundational bases for the jurys finding of
guilt in trial number one;
p. Overall, the true and accurate location and size of Heidy Trumans body was
known to WALLACE, JOHNSON, CROOK, RUIZ, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE and
ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE prior to the meeting with Dr. Leis, and prior to the time
Conrad was arrested, charged, incarcerated, and convicted based upon the fabricated distance
traveled evidence.
FALSE INFORMATION PRESENTED TO

DEPUTY UTAH MEDICAL EXAMINER, DR. EDWARD LEIS
352. Dr. Leis issued the original Certificate of Death on December 4, 2012.
353. The original death certificate listed Heidys immediate cause of death as a gunshot
wound of the head and the manner of death as could not be determined.
354. On July 17, 2013, and still in the investigative stage of the case, WALLACE, RUIZ,
and Attorney JOHNSON met with Dr. Leis.
355. WALLACE prepared and presented to Dr. Leis a Power Point presentation which
contained approximately 96 slides.
356. Upon information and belief, WALLACE, RUIZ and JOHNSON all made
representations to Dr. Leis and answered questions.
357. Both the meeting and the wholly misleading Power Point was clearly designed to
convince Dr. Leis to change his manner of death determination to homicide.
358. The Power Point represented purported facts to Dr. Leis suggesting that Heidys
death was a homicide. The entire Power Point, however, was misleading and contained
multiple false statements, misrepresentations and material omissions.
75
359. Among other fabrications, the Power Point conveyed as fact that:
a. there was a financial motive for Conrad to have killed Heidy since the two
were struggling financially; in fact, Dr. Leis was specifically told that the couples financial
problems provided a MOTIVE for Truman to kill Heidy;20
b. even though Conrad expressed that they had money, the Trumans checking
account regularly fell into the negative, and the night Heidy died, there was not enough money
in the checking account to cover the bills due the first of October;21
c. there existed more than $850,000 in life insurance that Conrad sought to gain
from Heidys death;
d. Conrad attempted to over-insure Heidy with additional life insurance in the
works; and
e. Heidy could not have traveled 12 feet from the bathroom to where she was found
due to the type of catastrophic injury she sustained.
360. Dr. Leis was also presented with a diagram of the scene with a scale attached.
a. The false and misleading diagram contained in the Power Point is attached
hereto as Exhibit B.
b. The Power Point diagram was inaccurate, misleading, and knowingly false;
c. Contrary to the known truth:
i. The diagram presented to Dr. Leis contains a body silhouette which
depicts Heidys body located on the far east side of the kitchen, with her head very close to the
20
Power Point, Slide 87 (triple emphasis on word motive in original slide).
21
Power Point, Slide 87.
76
stairs, and her feet located several feet away from the hallway opening;
ii. Using dimensions and locations known to law enforcement, the truth is
that Heidys feet were less than one foot from the hallway opening, and within inches of the
kitchen table and chairs;
d. Dr. Leis stated in a signed declaration that: In viewing the home and conducting
independent measurements and review, I found that the measurements and diagrams shown to
me by law enforcement and the state prosecutors were inaccurate and misrepresented/ distorted
the scene. (Declaration of Dr. Edward Leis at 67, attached hereto as Exhibit C).
361. WALLACE, RUIZ, and JOHNSON had been in the home, knew the truth, and
knowingly presented or allowed to be presented false, misleading and fabricated information to
Dr. Leis anyway.
362. WALLACE and RUIZ were put on notice of Heidy Trumans correct distance from the
hallway area through the hand sketched diagram and explanation given by Jason Keller, Heidy
Trumans brother in law, on October 4, 2012. Despite the truth, WALLACE and RUIZ
knowingly presented or allowed to be presented false, misleading and fabricated information to
Dr. Leis anyway.
363. WALLACE, RUIZ, and JOHNSON all attended the scene reconstruction walk through,
knew the truth, and knowingly presented or allowed to be presented false, misleading and
fabricated information to Dr. Leis anyway.
364. WALLACE, RUIZ, and JOHNSON had reviewed the photographs produced as a
result of the scene reconstruction walk through, knew the truth, and knowingly presented or
allowed to be presented false, misleading and fabricated information to Dr. Leis anyway.
77
365. On July 22, 2013, Dr. Leis amended the death certificate to indicate that Heidy was
shot by another person and changed the manner of death to Homicide.
366. The fabricated diagram and other fabricated evidence as to the size, location, and
distance Heidy purportedly traveled served as a fundamental basis for Dr. Leis change in his
manner of death determination to homicide.
CONRAD TRUMAN ARRESTED, CHARGED, AND INCARCERATED
Arrest and Charging
367. On July19, 2013, WALLACE met with JOHNSON and submitted an arrest warrant to
the Honorable Judge Samuel McVey. WALLACE signed the affidavit in support of the arrest
warrant. (Arrest Warrant and Affidavit in Support, attached cumulatively as Exhibit D).
368. Judge Mcvey signed the arrest warrant and set the bail amount at $1,000,000.00 cash
only.22
369. Conrad was arrested and booked shortly after the warrant was signed at 10:24 a.m. on
this same day.
370. Also on July19, 2013, Conrad Truman was charged by criminal Information with one
count of Domestic Violence Homicide, a first degree felony in violation of Utah Code 76-5-
203, and one count of Obstruction of Justice, a second degree felony in violation of Utah Code
76-8-306. WALLACE signed under oath the probable cause statement supporting the
Information. (Information and Probable Cause Statement attached as Exhibit E). JOHNSON
signed under oath, presumably drafted, and authorized and presented for filing the criminal
Information.
22
The subsequent request to reduce bail was denied, and Conrad remained incarcerated until his
eventual acquittal upon retrial in February 2017.
78
371. The arrest, charging, incarceration, and prosecution of Conrad Truman was based on the
fabricated evidence, false theories and material misrepresentations, including among others
that:
a. Heidys autopsy revealed she died from a gunshot wound to the right side of her
head, about 5 inches above the ear. The handgun was fired while being pressed against the
right side of her cranium with so much pressure that there were no powder burns on the outside
of her head;
b. Conrad executed his wife in front of the pantry door area of the kitchen over
12 feet away from the hallway area where Conrad reported last seeing her;
c. The gun that shot Heidy was found lying on the floor over ten feet away from
her body;
d. Because after the shot Heidy could not have physically traveled over 12 feet
away from the hallway area where Conrad reported last seeing her, Conrad was lying about
what happened;
e. Because there was an absence of any evidence in the hallway area, the shot was
not and could not have been discharged anywhere else in the home but by the pantry door;
f. Conrad actually owned the black-handled gun, used it to kill his wife, and lied
about the guns ownership;
g. Conrads statements regarding his wifes location and how she was shot were
lies and indicative of obstruction of justice and a guilty mind;
h. Conrad repeatedly lied, examples being that: he claimed that he saw a black
man run out of the house; lied about the ownership of the gun; and his evasiveness
79
surrounding a 94-second phone conversation he had with his wife approximately 10 minutes
before the 911 call;
i. As the investigation continued, Conrad would not return any phone calls, and
was not willing to speak with officers;
j. The couple was struggling financially, Conrad had over-insured his wife, and
therefore, this pecuniary gain is the primary motive in Conrads killing of Heidy.
First Criminal Proceedings
372. During the proceedings, Conrad remained in custody on one-million-cash-only bail.
373. Throughout the preliminary hearing, other preliminary proceedings, and at Trumans
first trial, the State prosecutors consistently advanced the above stated false theories and
fabricated evidence and testimony supporting them.
374. Conrad was represented at trial number one by Mr. Ronald Yengich.
375. Deputy Utah County Prosecutors Craig JOHNSON and Ryan Peters (State
Prosecutors) represented the State of Utah.
376. An almost four-week trial began two years after Heidys death, on September 30, 2014,
whereupon the jury selection process began.
377. During the first trial proceedings, the State Prosecutors presented Dr. Leis as an expert
witness and knowingly presented his tainted opinion that this death was a homicide.
a. When asked whether he knew who was holding the gun to Heidys head when
the fatal shot was fired, Dr. Leis concluded on cross examination, [b]y my determination its
somebody other than Heidy;
b. JOHNSON also touted Dr. Leis conclusion of homicide as well-founded,
80
based upon thousands of autopsies and made only after due consideration and hearing all of
the evidence.
378. During the first trial proceedings, the State Prosecutors knowingly presented false,
misleading and/or fabricated evidence surrounding the GSR as follows:
a. The GSR samples that had been taken were not sent for analysis, the reason
being the GSR analysis is not a very viable forensic tool;
b. State expert testimony was presented that GSR analysis cant tell much;
c. State expert testimony was presented that there was no GSR detected in the
Truman home;
d. State expert testimony was presented that Dr. Leis did not visually see GSR on
Heidy Trumans hands;
e. When asked whether he knew who was holding the gun to Heidys head when
the fatal shot was fired, Dr. Leis concluded on cross-examination, [b]y my determination its
somebody other than Heidy;
f. In closing argument, JOHNSON falsely told the jury that a specified forensic lab
and other labs wouldnt take the GSR samples for testing; the inference and argument to the
jury being that nobody would test the GSR because GSR analysis is so unreliable;
g. In closing argument, JOHNSON justified the failure to test the GSR samples by
arguing that GSR was not relevant; was just a red-herring; that all the experts were consistent
in the opinion that any GSR result would not be helpful; and inferred to the jury that GSR
testing isnt reliable since nobody does the testing.
81
misleading and/or fabricated evidence of distance traveled, the dimensions of the
residence, and the size and location of Heidys body as follows:
a. JOHNSON admitted Trial Exhibits 9/9A/9B through CROOK and WALLACE
who represented these exhibits to be true, accurate, and to-scale diagrams of the scene and the
size and location of Heidy Trumans body;
b. Based upon these diagrams, witnesses testified that Heidys body traveled 10-12
feet from the area where Conrad heard the pop and from where he saw Heidy fall;
c. Dr. Leis testified that if the injury was self-inflicted, Heidy would not have been
able to travel very far; might have been able to take 1-2 steps; and might have made it 2-3
feet before collapsing. Thus, Heidys body being located 10-12 feet away is inconsistent with
the physical evidence of where Heidys body was located;
d. Likewise, Trumans description of events and seeing Heidy in the hallway/
doorway area is inconsistent with the physical evidence of where Heidys body was located 10-
12 feet away.
380. Relatedly, during the first trial proceedings, the State Prosecutors knowingly
presented false, misleading and/or fabricated evidence concerning the location of the
black-handled gun as follows:
a. CROOK falsely testified that the black-handled gun was 8-10 feet away from
Heidys body when he first saw it by Trumans feet, based on the State diagrams;
b. Dr. Leis testified that had this been a self-inflicted wound, the gun would likely
have been found close to the body, likely within 2-3 feet of body if self-discharged.
82
misleading and/or fabricated evidence concerning financial motive as follows:
a. The prosecutors, particularly Ryan Peters, presented evidence of a financial
motive;
b. The existence of some negative balances in one of the couples several accounts
was used as proof that the couple was struggling financially;
c. The State prosecutors also presented the idea that because the Trumans were
trying to refinance their home, this somehow amounted to a financial motive;
d. The State prosecutors called witnesses from the benefits department of Heidy
and Conrads employment, and evidence was adduced as to the couples salaries; that Conrad
and Heidy each held insurance and other benefits through their employment; and that Conrad
eventually filled out the claim forms for accidental death benefits through his work, describing
Heidys death as an accident in the home having to do with a gunshot;
e. JOHNSON elicited from WALLACE that Heidy held $734,130 of insurance for
which Truman was the beneficiary and would gain by her death; the State laid no foundation for
this evidence as to where this amount came from or whether it was accurate;
f. In closing rebuttal, JOHNSON mocked the defense who had argued to the jury
there was no financial motive here. JOHNSON falsely rebutted that the prosecution had never
argued the life insurance issue, but instead, brought up life insurance to show the police did a
thorough investigation and only wanted to give the jury a full picture of the case;
83
g. In closing rebuttal, JOHNSON also argued: she had $758,897 in life
insurance. Nothing to gain from a dead wife? Im not so sure that thats supported by the
evidence.
misleading and/or fabricated evidence concerning the 94 second phone call as follows:
a. WALLACE falsely testified that Conrad placed a completed call to Heidy at
10:47 p.m. and testified that Conrads cell phone call log showed it went on for ninety-four
seconds;
b. Jurors heard the recording of Conrads interview with Wallace wherein Conrad
appears confused at the 94-second phone call;
c. WALLACE testified that Conrad could not explain the call;
d. The State prosecutors led jury to believe that Conrad had a 94-second phone
conversation with Heidy shortly before her death and additionally, that Truman was evasive
about not remembering it;
e. Conrad testified at trial that he thought he left a voice mail message but must not
have as there was only four seconds of silence and may have hit the wrong button; an
explanation that becomes a lie to a jury when told that the call was completed.
misleading and/or fabricated evidence concerning Conrads purported inconsistent
statements as follows:
a. The State prosecutors knowingly presented the steady theory, testimony and
argument that Conrad gave continually inconsistent statements; that Conrad made these
84
statements as fact; and that these inconsistencies showed culpable state of mind;
b. With regard to one alleged statement, the State prosecutors knowingly presented
evidence that:
i. Conrad told Cody Wagner at the hospital that he actually saw a black
guy run out of the house through the corner of his eye;
ii. Thereafter, in closing rebuttal, JOHNSON confused the statement
even further, falsely telling the jury to remember Conrads comment, I saw a black guy out of
the corner of my eye when I was holding Heidy in the house further arguing that the jury
must reject this explanation because there was no one else in the house and that you know,
theres no black guy but was another red herring theory presented by Conrad suggesting that
there was another person in that house.
misleading and/or fabricated evidence concerning Conrads purported unusual, angry, or
evasive behavior as follows:
a. The State prosecutors presented testimony from law enforcement officers, the
dispatcher, and the victim advocate, concerning Conrads display of emotion, his inability to
concentrate, his agitation, and his anger, to falsely characterize the behaviors as unusual and
evasive;
b. Trumans anger and threats were also introduced to falsely suggest Conrad
was homicidal and capable of killing his wife.
385. Based upon the false, misleading and/or fabricated evidence knowingly presented to the
jury, the jury found Conrad guilty of both charges on October 22, 2014.
85
386. On February 9, 2015, the state court sentenced Conrad to prison for an indeterminate
term of not less than fifteen years and which may be life for the conviction of Murder, a First
Degree Felony; and a consecutive sentence of an indeterminate term of not less than one year
nor more than fifteen years for the conviction of Obstructing Justice, a Second Degree Felony.
Investigation by New Counsel and Motion for New Trial Proceedings
387. On February 18, 2015, trial counsel timely filed a Motion for New Trial, raising
prosecutorial misconduct claims asserted in a previous motion to arrest judgment filed prior to
sentencing.
388. Attorneys Mark Moffat and Ann Taliaferro (New Counsel) thereafter entered an
appearance as substitute counsel on February 25, 2015, and requested additional time to amend
the Motion for New Trial.
389. New Counsel successfully motioned the court to release the GSR samples, the firearms,
and the cell phones in order to conduct independent analysis.
390. New Counsel reviewed the record, the trial exhibits, the discovery disclosed by the
State, had transcripts of the prior proceedings prepared, sought to meet with witnesses, and
reinvestigated the case.
391. New Counsel also filed supplemental discovery requests, requests for information under
the Utah Governmental Records Access Management Act, subpoenas duces tecum, and
multiple motions to compel the Utah County Attorneys Office and Orem City to disclose the
requested information and evidence in compliance with their constitutional, statutory, and
ethical duties of disclosure in a criminal case. Motions were also filed in an attempt to
reconstruct missing portions of the prior trial.
86
392. Ultimately, on August 21, 2015, New Counsel filed a lengthy Amended Motion for New
Trial and a detailed memorandum in support. (Amended Motion for New Trial).
393. The Amended Motion for New Trial detailed numerous and pervasive instances of
outrageous police and prosecutorial misconduct, as well as other legal errors that justified the
trial courts grant of a new trial.
394. Upon filing the Amended Motion for New Trial, and confident that Conrad was
entitled to relief due to what had been uncovered during New Counsels investigation, Conrad
sought reasonable bail and release pending the motion for new trial proceedings and appeal
thereafter if necessary.
395. JOHNSON, on behalf of the State, objected to bail or release pending the motion for
new trial proceedings.
396. Conrad remained in custody pending the motion for new trial proceedings. In denying
reasonable bail or release, the court relied in large part on the sworn averments submitted
initially by WALLACE upon which probable cause was initially found.
397. Through investigation and with regard to Dr. Leis, New Counsel discovered:
a. WALLACE, JOHNSON, and others had fabricated evidence and made
materially false statements to the Deputy Medical Examiner in order to obtain his change in his
manner of death determination;
b. WALLACE, JOHNSON and RUIZ presented a 96-slide Power Point designed to
convince Dr. Leis to change his manner of death determination in order to aid the criminal
prosecution. This presentation had never been disclosed previously;
c. The 96-slide PowerPoint contains misleading, inaccurate, and outright false
87
information on a variety of topics upon which Dr. Leis based his opinion that Heidy Trumans
manner of death was the result of a homicide;
d. While the entire Power Point was misleading, Dr. Leis was presented a diagram
of the scene.
i. The diagram was erroneous and misleading in material respects,
including the fact that the measurements noted on the diagram were wrong;
ii. Most significantly, the diagram depicts Heidys body located on the far
east side of the kitchen with her head very close to the stairs and her feet located approximately
half-way across the kitchen, several feet away from the hallway opening;
iii. The truth is that Heidys feet were less than one foot from the opening of
the entrance to the hallway.
e. Even beyond the measurements themselves, WALLACE, CROOK, RUIZ,
JOHNSON, and others knew and were aware they were presenting Dr. Leis with false
information when they represented that Heidy traveled a distance of over 12 feet after the shot.
Their knowledge is evidenced from the facts that:
i. they had been in the Truman home on multiple occasions and knew how
very small the area at issue was;
ii. they had been put on notice by a diagram drawn by Heidys brother-in-
aw, Jason Keller, depicting Heidy as falling close to the hallway area at issue;
iii. they attended a reconstruction walk-through exercise and witnessed the
actress portraying Heidy located very close by the hallway area at issue; and
iv. a series of photographs taken during that reconstruction walk-through
88
confirms that Heidy was located very close by the hallway area at issue.
f. New Counsel also discovered that presumably at the direction of JOHNSON,
WALLACE prepared a completely new diagram only days before the first trial which contained
different measurements and which deleted the body depiction present in the diagrams shown to
Dr. Leis previously. At trial, Dr. Leis was thereafter presented this completely different
diagram than that ever shown to him before, misleading all to believe that Dr. Leis had viewed
the newly-prepared trial diagram before forming his opinion;
g. After New Counsel presented Dr. Leis with true and accurate information, and
after viewing the scene himself, Dr. Leis honorably corrected his opinion from that presented at
trial, and declared that he could no longer conclude that Heidy Trumans death was a homicide
to any degree of medical or scientific certainty and also, could not rule out the possibility that
Heidy Truman shot herself.
398. Through investigation and with regard to financial motive, New Counsel discovered:
a. The Trumans held several accounts.
i. Both Heidy and Conrad maintained a variety of accounts at separate
banks and additionally, the couple had a joint checking account into which each would deposit
money to pay household bills;
ii. Conrad and Heidy had over $25,000 in readily available cash in their
bank and money market accounts, plus additional cash and assets in safes in their home;
iii. Their retirement accounts collectively contained over $40,000;
iv. Conrad had just sold stock and was looking for an investment vehicle for
the proceeds;
89
v. The fact that one of the couples joint accounts may have fallen into the
negative on occasion was not due to a lack of money.
b. The full financial picture, and the fact that the Trumans were not struggling
financially, was known to WALLACE and others prior to meeting with Dr. Leis, and clearly by
the time Conrad was arrested, charged, and prosecuted for murder based upon a false and
fabricated financial motive;
c. WALLACE specifically concluded in his police report that the Trumans did not
appear to be suffering any financial problems prior to Heidys death. New Counsel
discovered, however, that Wallace altered his police report and specifically deleted this
conclusion as to a lack of financial motive;
d. WALLACE and others also knew that Conrad was not seeking additional life
insurance, was not attempting to over-insure his wife, and that Conrad actually resisted taking
out a whole life insurance policy recommended to him;
e. WALLACE and others, including Prosecutor Peters, had been told by financial
advisor, Mr. John Engh, that there was no financial motive for murder, the Trumans were not
struggling financially and also explained that Conrad was not seeking to buy life insurance, but
resisted purchasing the whole life policy Engh admittedly urged;
f. WALLACE, JOHNSON, and others knew there was no motive, financial or
otherwise, prior to meeting with Dr. Leis, and prior to charging, incarcerating, and prosecuting
Conrad for murder;
g. Although knowing there was no financial motive, WALLACE, JOHNSON, and
others presented fabricated, misleading, and false evidence and testimony anyway.
90
399. Through investigation and with regard to scene diagrams or depictions, the
dimensions of the residence, and the size and location of Heidys body, New Counsel
discovered:
a. WALLACE and/or other officers mismeasured the scene and every single
measurement on every single diagram disclosed in the case was wrong;
b. In placing Heidys body position accurately, her feet were less than one foot
from the hallway entrance rather than the several feet represented by the diagrams;
c. Perhaps even more critically, in placing Heidys body position accurately, her
feet were less than one foot from the hallway entrance rather than the 12+ feet WALLACE,
CROOK, JOHNSON and others knowingly and pervasively misrepresented.
d. Rather than admitting the measurement errors, there existed an apparent cover-
up by WALLACE, CROOK, JOHNSON, and others which included:
i. The refusal to admit, the failure to disclose, and/or the affirmative
concealment of the measurement errors themselves;
ii. The refusal to admit, the failure to disclose, and/or the affirmative
concealment as to who actually measured, when these measurements took place, and how the
measurements were taken;
iii. the production of multiple inaccurate, misleading and false diagrams,
which were all represented to be true and accurate depictions;
iv. misleading and outright false statements made under oath by CROOK
and WALLACE, as elicited or presented by JOHNSON, as to who measured, the accuracy and
91
to-scale nature of the diagrams, and the accuracy of the location of Heidys body and other
pieces of evidence;
v. the knowing introduction of the unfounded and false measurements and
diagrams in court hearings and to the jury; and
vi. the continued presentation of the false measurements and diagrams to
Dr. Leis, and to every other judge, expert, or fact-finder throughout the entire criminal
proceedings;
e. Even beyond the faulty measurements themselves, WALLACE, RUIZ,
JOHNSON, CROOK and others knew and were well aware that they were presenting
misleading and outright false and fabricated information and/or testimony when they
represented that Heidy traveled a distance of over 12 feet after the shot, or when they
represented Heidy was approximately 10 feet from the kitchen table and chairs. Their
knowledge is evidenced from the facts that:
i. they had been in the Truman home on multiple occasions and knew how
very small the areas was;
ii. they had been put on notice by a diagram drawn by Heidys brother-in-
law, Jason Keller, depicting Heidy falling close to the hallway area at issue;
iii. they had attended a reconstruction walk-through exercise and witnessed
the actress portraying Heidy Truman located very close to the hallway area at issue; and/or
iv. they had viewed a series of photographs taken during that reconstruction
walk through that confirm that Heidy Truman was located very close by the hallway area at
issue.
92
f. The faulty and misleading measurements, diagrams, other depictions of the
scene, as well as the knowingly false and fabricated claim that Heidy traveled over 12 feet after
the fatal shot, was reported to the media, and relied upon by Conrads trial counsel, Dr. Leis,
every judge, every expert rendering an opinion, and every fact-finder throughout the entire
criminal proceedings;
g. The truth was that Heidys body fell and was located consistent with Conrads
description and consistent with a self-inflicted shot.
400. Through investigation and with regard to the black-handled gun, New Counsel
discovered that its accurate location was also consistent with a self-inflicted shot.
a. CROOK testified at trial that the black-handled gun was 8-10 feet away from
Heidys body when he first saw it by Conrads feet, based on the State diagram;
b. Dr. Leis then testified at trial that had this been a self-inflicted wound, the gun
would likely have been found close to the body and would have likely been within 2-3 feet of
Heidys body if self-discharged;
c. When considered in context of the correct measurements (noted above) as well
as the correct location of Heidys body, the black-handled gun was not and could not have been
8-10 feet away as knowingly misrepresented by WALLACE, CROOK, JOHNSON, and others;
d. WALLACE, JOHNSON and others knew that the black-handled gun was not
this significant distance away from Heidys body, because WALLACE, JOHNSON, blood
spatter expert Squire, and others were told by officers and first responders within hours of the
shooting that the black handled gun was found next to the victim before it was kicked under
the kitchen table;
93
e. WALLACE, CROOK, JOHNSON and others knew that the black handled gun
was not this significant distance away from Heidys body, because all had been to the Truman
home on multiple occasions and knew how very small the area was; because all had been to the
reconstruction walk through; and because the reconstruction photos themselves establish that, at
most, the firearm was within 3 feet of Heidys body.
401. Through investigation and with regard to the bullet casing, New Counsel discovered
that its location and condition was consistent with and evidence of a self-inflicted shot in that
hallway area.
a. WALLACE, with the advice and authorization for presentment by JOHNSON,
stated under oath on innumerable occasions in affidavits that there was no evidence to suggest
that the fatal shot was fired in the hallway area by the bathroom, and as such, the only area
where the shot could have occurred was in front of the pantry door ostensibly several feet away.
b. At the preliminary hearing and trial, WALLACE and the prosecutors presented
photographs and testimony showing that the casing from the black-handled gun was located in
the hallway just outside the bathroom door, next to a vacuum cleaner and a pair of socks;
c. WALLACE testified at trial that the casing held little evidentiary value because
the casing could have been kicked to that location inadvertently in the chaos;
d. Contrary to WALLACEs false and misleading testimony, the location of the
casing is important:
i. the location of the casing corroborates Conrads explanation of events
and the discharge of the firearm in that area where he heard the pop;
ii. had the casing been kicked or moved into the hallway in the chaos of the
94
contaminated and bloody scene, the casing would have had blood or other material on it, given
amount of blood present and tracked throughout the house; It did not as confirmed by the
photographic evidence and forensic analysis;
iii. due to fact that the black-handled gun ejects to the right and backward,
the location of the casing was inconsistent with WALLACEs and the prosecutors theory that
the shooting occurred near the pantry door; had the shot occurred in front of pantry door, it is
unlikely the casing would have been found to the west, around a corner in front of the bathroom
door, but instead, would have likely been located somewhere in the kitchen area or the living
room area of the home downstairs;
iv. Since the location of the casing in the hallway area is consistent with the
firearm discharge in that area and therefore, WALLACE and others made false statements when
averring that that there was no evidence to suggest that the fatal shot was fired in the hallway
area by the bathroom.
e. Relatedly, with regard to the casing and evidence presented at trial
regarding a misfiring that occurred when test firing the black-handled gun, New Counsel
discovered that:
i. WALLACE, with the advice and authorization for presentment by
JOHNSON, stated under oath on innumerable occasions in affidavits that there was no
evidence to suggest that the fatal shot was fired in the hallway area by the bathroom, and as
such, the only area where the shot could have occurred was in front of the pantry door
ostensibly several feet away;
ii. WALLACE and the prosecution untruthfully told the jury during trial
95
that in testing the black-handled gun, the gun misfired and that misfire meant that firearm
failed to fire on one occasion. JOHNSON elicited or failed to correct this false testimony;
iii. To the contrary, police reports document that during the test-firing of
the black-handled gun, the gun discharged accidentally and shot through the ceiling of the
testing facility;
iv. This accidental discharge was the only way the casing was ever found
consistent with where it was located the night of Heidys death;
v. Therefore, WALLACE and others also made false statements when
averring that that there was no evidence to suggest that the fatal shot was fired in the hallway
area by the bathroom.
402. Through investigation and with regard to the GSR evidence, New Counsel discovered:
a. The GSR samples taken from the hands of Heidy and Conrad Truman the
night Heidy died had not been analyzed prior to the first trial. New Counsel sent the samples
for analysis and the results were exculpatory and showed that a significant amount of GSR was
found on Heidy Trumans right hand, consistent with her having fired the fatal shot. More
specifically, expert analysis showed that:
i. GSR was present on Heidy Trumans right hand in a quantity and pattern
consistent with firearm discharge;
ii. A large number of two and three-element components were identified as
highly specific to weapon discharge;
iii. It is significant that the particles were found on Heidys right hand, as she
was right-handed and the fatal wound was inflicted to right temple;
96
iv. It is significant that no three-particle components were detected on
Heidys left hand, again consistent with her having held and discharged firearm in her right
hand;
v. The pattern of distribution on Heidys right hand, with the concentration
of the particles greatest on the webbing area between her thumb and forefinger, are consistent
with her having recently fired the gun;
vi. Additionally, all alternative explanations for the presence of GSR on
Heidys hand posed by officers or the prosecutors, including theories that Heidy may have
grabbed the gun in a struggle, are undercut by the other forensic evidence, including: a lack of
signs of a struggle; no fingerprints on the gun; the straight shot wound path and contact wound
to the right temple; and a lack of significant abrasions, wounds, stippling or other marks on
Heidys hand.
b. Law enforcement also failed to preserve material GSR evidence by having
Conrad wash his hands prior to the time his samples were taken;
c. It appears that additional GSR samples that were taken from other items of
evidence were lost or not preserved; and
d. Law enforcement officers and the prosecutors failed to disclose to prior counsel
the fact that the samples had not been sent for analysis, but instead presented surprise, and false,
expert testimony discounting GSR analysis as a forensic tool in order to justify their failures.
403. Through investigation and with regard to the purported 94-second phone call Conrad
had with Heidy prior to her death, New Counsel discovered:
a. Just as Conrad had explained, this was not a completed call;
97
b. The cell phone evidence established that the call was not an answered call;
c. In fact, the cell phone records were highly exculpatory and when viewed in
conjunction with other evidence, places Heidy in the master bedroom within arms length of the
black-handled gun approximately three minutes prior to Conrads call to 911;
d. Despite what WALLACE and the prosecution misrepresented to Conrad, in
affidavits, during hearings throughout the proceedings, and to the jury:
i. the phone records establish this was not a completed call, but that Heidy
actually took some action to reject the call, which then sent it to voice mail;
ii. the 94-seconds at issue does not measure the length of a phone
conversation, but is the time it took for Conrads phone to connect with Heidys phone, the call
to be rejected and sent to voicemail, and the four-seconds Heidys phone apparently recorded
prior to disconnecting in some fashion;
iii. according to the phone records, the voice message was retrieved
approximately three minutes before the 911 call was placed;
iv. When officers arrived on scene, Heidys cell phone was located on her
side of the bed in the master bedroom, an arms length away from her night stand where the
black handled gun was usually kept, and with no blood evidence on the white bedding upon
which the cell phone sat;
v. Thus, Conrads responses to questions about a completed call or
conversations with Heidy were not ones of evasiveness, but responses of confusion because he
knew that he did not speak with Heidy on the phone shortly before her death.
98
404. Through investigation and with regard to Conrads purportedly inconsistent
statements New Counsel discovered:
a. That the numerous recorded statements established that Conrad told a consistent
story about the material circumstances surrounding the incident;
b. Any purported inconsistencies in some details were not due to a culpable or
obstructive state of mind, but due to fact that Conrad was highly distraught and emotional, had
no idea what happened, and under effects of trauma, asked questions and posed hypotheses as
to what might have happened;
c. Conrad consistently expressed that he did not know what happened, and did not
know how to explain the horrible events he saw; and
d. Importantly, Conrad was not intending to relay to officers the facts as to what
happened; Nor did officers truly take Conrads statements that way;
e. Accordingly, WALLACE, CROOK, RUIZ, LOPEZ, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE
DOE, ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, and others mischaracterized the statements
compelled from Conrad while in the midst of trauma that went well beyond mere interpretation
or spinning of evidence; rather, WALLACE, CROOK, RUIZ, LOPEZ, OFFICER(S)
JOHN/JANE DOE, ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, and others fabricated inconsistent
statements that simply did not exist in order to convict Conrad of both murder and obstruction
of justice.
405. Through investigation and with regard to Conrads purportedly unusual and
threatening behavior, New Counsel discovered, through consultation with a qualified
trauma expert:
99
a. That Conrads anger, threats, agitation, and memory issues in the throes of
the horrific scene and chaos were normal reactions, and likely involuntary responses, to trauma;
b. The behavior Conrad exhibited, including memory gaps of the horrific event,
was a normal reaction made by someone in the throes of a traumatic experience;
c. Research has shown that a person in the midst of a highly traumatic event will
exhibit certain expected and usual behaviors, which include anger and aggressive behaviors,
disorganization and confusion, as well as dissociation and panic;
d. Accordingly, WALLACE, CROOK, RUIZ, LOPEZ, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE
DOE, ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, and others mischaracterized Conrads behaviors and
memory issues that occurred as the result of obvious trauma that went well beyond mere
interpretation or spinning of evidence; rather, WALLACE, CROOK, RUIZ, LOPEZ,
OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE and others fabricated
unusual behaviors that were not unusual at all in context, in order to convict Conrad of both
murder and obstruction of justice.
406. On February 12, 2016, JOHNSON and his co-counsel Ryan Peters filed a Memorandum
in Opposition to the Amended Motion for New Trial on behalf of the State. Of relevance to the
claims made herein:
a. JOHNSON and Peters conceded that there was no financial motive, and claim to
have abandoned it before trial;
b. JOHNSON and Peters would not concede, however, that the scene was
mis-measured or the that the distance Heidy purportedly traveled was false. Rather, JOHNSON
and Peters set forth two preposterous arguments: 1) law enforcements measurements were not
100
really incorrect, but rather, since Conrads family had control of the home, they may have
remodeled and thereby changed the home dimension; or 2) law enforcements measurements
were not really incorrect, but rather, WALLACE and others employed a disparate system of
measurement whereby 10 inches equaled a foot;
c. After much litigation over the measurements, including several hearings held in
an effort to ascertain who actually measured and to obtain relevant documents and information
from WALLACE and the prosecution, the prosecutors finally conceded at oral argument on the
motion for new trial that the measurements, were in fact incorrect, but maintained any error was
harmless.
407. On August 3, 2016, the state court granted Conrads Amended Motion for New Trial.
Second Criminal Proceedings
408. After the court granted the motion for new trial, New Counsel moved the court to set
reasonable bail and/or other conditions and release Conrad pending the new trial.
409. The State objected.
410. The court denied modification of the one million dollar cash only bail and in doing so,
relied on the findings of probable cause made initially that were based upon WALLACEs
sworn statements which had since been discredited.
411. Conrad remained incarcerated pending his new trial.
412. Several pretrial motions, including motions to dismiss and to suppress evidence, were
filed.
413. Among the pretrial motions, Conrad filed motions to dismiss the case and/or for a new
preliminary hearing based upon the fact that once the fabricated and otherwise misleading and
101
false information was excised from consideration, and once the true and correct evidence was
considered, probable cause no longer existed to support the criminal information, to support the
bindover from a preliminary hearing, and to require Conrads continued incarceration.
414. The state court denied all motions filed pretrial, some without prejudice and allowing
Conrad to revisit them at trial.
415. On November 9, 2016, and in an effort to make a diagram for the second trial, Scott
Finch from the Utah County Attorneys Office, under the direction of Deputy Utah County
Attorney Tim Taylor, sought a search warrant for the Truman home in order to conduct
measurements. The affidavit in support of this warrant relied on the false evidence and theories
contained in the warrants sought previously by WALLACE, and additionally states as the basis
for probable cause: Due to the evidence presented at both the preliminary hearing and during
the trial, there is probable cause to believe that Mr. Conrad Truman shot Mrs. Heidy Truman in
their residence located at 220 South 1180 West in Orem, Utah.23
416. A second jury trial was held from February 1- February 24, 2017.
417. The previously fabricated or misleading evidence was either not presented, or rebutted
at the retrial. By way of summary:
a. The fabricated distance traveled evidence was not presented during the second
trial and corrected measurements and diagrams were offered. The officers lack of credibility,
the mis-measurements and their lack of accountability, and their true knowledge of the false
theories was also explored;
23
As with all the other warrants, then, and as set forth herein, this warrant also was invalid since
it was not based upon the requisite showing of probable cause, and further, because the affidavit in
support contained and/or relied upon several false and misleading material statements or omissions made
knowingly or in reckless disregard for the truth.
102
b. The tainted opinion Dr. Leis rendered in trial number one as a result of the false
information he had been given was corrected in trial number two. At retrial, Dr. Leis testified
that he had been given faulty information by law enforcement and the prosecutors, could not
make a finding that Heidy Trumans death was the result of homicide, and could not rule out
suicide as the manner of death. Significantly, Dr. Leis testified that the contact nature of
Heidys wound, to the right temple, with the wound path noted, was consistent with suicide and
that Dr. Leis had never performed an autopsy (except for perhaps once) where this wound
pattern was determined to be a homicide;
c. The fabricated financial motive was not presented during the second trial.24 As
noted, the prosecutors conceded there was not a financial motive and claimed to have
abandoned the financial motive theory previously;
d. The prosecutors introduced an expert to speak to suicide risk factors.
Thereafter, and through cross examination of the expert and other witnesses, New Counsel
developed evidence that Heidy Truman held several risk factors for suicide;
e. GSR analysis which had not been conducted prior to trial number one was
presented on retrial. Conrad presented the evidence and expert analysis finding that GSR was
present on Heidy Trumans right hand and was consistent with her having fired the fatal shot.
Upon cross examination of prosecution witnesses and experts, all conceded at least, that the
presence of GSR on Heidy Trumans right hand in the webbing area between her thumb and
24
Although, prosecutors still presented evidence of the Trumans joint checking account (for
some unknown reason), and evidence that Conrad filed an accidental death claim through his work (for
the purpose of introducing that Conrad stated that Heidys death was due to an accident).
103
forefinger was consistent with her having fired the fatal shot, and that no one could rule out that
Heidy Truman shot herself;
f. The cell phone records and the accurate information concerning the 94 second
phone call was presented and explored. Accurate evidence that the 94-second phone call was
not a completed call and that Conrad did not have a phone conversation with his wife was
presented. Additionally, expert cell phone record analysis was presented that showed that
Conrads phone call was rejected by Heidys cell phone; that the call then went to voicemail on
Heidy Trumans phone; the voicemail message was retrieved and accessed approximately three
minutes prior to the 911 call being placed; and that Heidys cell phone was found on Heidys
side of the bed in the master bedroom, within an arms length from the night stand which kept
the black-handled firearm, which is the firearm that fired the fatal shot. It was shown that this
evidence also comports with Conrads explanation of events that he was in the kitchen, heard a
door open, then a short time later (whether it was one minute or five minutes, he didnt know);
he heard a pop sound from the hallway area; Heidy went down, he panicked, and he called 911
as fast as he could;
g. The prosecution again depended upon their claim that Conrads statements were
inconsistent and knowingly so in order to be indicative of a guilty mind. The prosecution was
not allowed to adduce evidence from witnesses that Conrads behavior was unusual, although
officers were allowed to testify that Conrad made threats and was agitated and angry. New
Counsel presented evidence as well as argument showing that Conrads statements were
actually not inconsistent as continually asserted by the prosecution, and presented expert
evidence from an experienced trauma expert that any angry or aggressive behaviors are
104
actually well-documented characteristics of one suffering from such a gruesome and traumatic
experience.
418. Other misleading and/or false information was either not presented or discredited by the
defense in trial number two.
419. Closing arguments were heard and the jury began deliberations on February 23, 2017.
420. On February 24, 2017, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty on both counts.
421. Conrad was processed and released within hours.
*******
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
UNLAWFUL DETENTION AND INTERROGATION

42 U.S.C. 1983 Violation of Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights
to Be Free from Unreasonable Search and Seizure
and Right Against Self-Incrimination
(As Against Defendants CROOK, RUIZ, LOPEZ, FERRE,

OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE 1-10, CITY and OCPD)
422. Plaintiff alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in the preceding
paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
423. Defendants acted under the color and pretense of Utah State law.
424. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from
unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment applies to the states through
incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
a. A detention or arrest is a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth
Amendment. A seizure occurs when a law enforcement officer, by means of physical force or
show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen;
105
b. Further, an initially consensual encounter between a police officer and a citizen
can be transformed into a seizure or detention within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, if,
in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have
believed that he was not free to leave;
c. No citizen may be detained without particularized reasonable articulable
suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime;
d. No citizen may be arrested without probable cause. The intrusiveness and the
conduct of the police officers may turn an encounter into a de facto arrest, at which time,
probable cause is necessary at the initiation
425. The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects a citizen from being
compelled to be a witness against himself in a criminal case. The Fifth Amendment applies to
the states through incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
a. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individuals from
being compelled to give evidence against themselves in a criminal case. In analyzing
whether a statement, admission, or confession is constitutionally voluntary or has been
instead been compelled, the totality of the circumstances are examined to determine whether
statements were made freely, voluntarily, and without compulsion. Under the totality of the
circumstances test, external factors are considered (such as the duration of the interrogation, the
advisement of Miranda warnings,25 the persistence of the officers, police trickery, absence of
family and counsel, and threats and promises made to the defendant by the officers), as well as
25
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) effectuates, in part, the Fifth Amendment right
against self-incrimination. A Miranda warning is required once a suspect is in custody, or has
otherwise been significantly deprived of his freedom. Thereafter, once an accused has been advised of his
Miranda rights, he may waive these rights but must do so voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently.
106
internal factors (such as the persons mental health, mental deficiency, emotional instability,
education, age, and familiarity with the judicial system);
b. A citizens Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination are violated when
statements have been compelled and when those statements are later used in a criminal case to
develop investigatory leads, to initiate a criminal investigation, to bring charges, to support the
prosecution in a probable cause hearing, and used in a criminal trial.26
426. Here, Defendant Officers violated Conrads Fourth Amendment rights as follows:
a. Conrad became a suspect almost immediately upon arrival of the first police
officer and was illegally detained and certainly in police custody, subject to at least a de facto
arrest (absent probable cause that he committed any crime), from that point on;
b. Officers CROOK, LOPEZ, FERRE, and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE
illegally detained and questioned Conrad at the Truman residence on the evening of September
30, 2012, as they refused to take Conrad to the hospital to see his dying wife, refused to allow
him to leave, refused to allow him to freely move around the home or the area, refused to allow
him to care for his dogs or to provide care themselves, gave him orders, threatened to handcuff
him and threatened to not take him to the hospital, refused to allow him to call family or an
attorney or to call for him, all as they detained, questioned and recorded him without providing
him his Miranda warnings or an attorney. At this point, CROOK, LOPEZ, FERRE, and
OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE illegally detained Conrad absent the requisite reasonable
suspicion or probable cause that he committed any crime;
26
Accord Vogt v. City of Hays, Kansas, 844 F.3d 1235 (10th Cir. 2017).
107
c. Officer LOPEZ illegally detained and questioned Conrad on the way to the
hospital, and thereafter, officers LOPEZ, RUIZ, and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE illegally
detained and questioned Conrad Truman at the hospital on the evening of September 30, 2012
into the morning hours of October 1, 2012, as officers kept Conrad in their control and custody
at the hospital, would not allow him to be alone with Heidy either before or after her death,
would not allow him to freely communicate with family or provide him an attorney, refused to
allow him to freely move around the hospital or the area and as they questioned him without
providing him his Miranda warnings or an attorney. At this point, LOPEZ, RUIZ, and
OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE illegally detained Conrad absent the requisite reasonable
suspicion or probable cause that he committed any crime;
d. Officer LOPEZ illegally detained and questioned Conrad Truman on the way from
the hospital to the police station, and thereafter, officers LOPEZ, RUIZ, CROOK, and
OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, illegally detained and questioned Conrad at the police station
in the early morning hours of October 1, 2012, as officers kept Conrad in their control and
custody, would not allow him to freely communicate with family or provide him an attorney,
and as they questioned him without providing him his Miranda warnings or an attorney.
Thereafter, once Miranda warnings were finally given, Officers CROOK, RUIZ, and
OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, continued to detain and interrogate Conrad despite affirmative
requests and attempts by Conrad to cease questioning and to leave. At this point, LOPEZ,
CROOK, RUIZ and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE illegally detained Conrad absent the
requisite reasonable suspicion or probable cause that he committed any crime.
108
427. Here, Defendant Officers violated Conrads Fifth Amendment rights as follows:
a. Defendant Officers began compelling statements from a clearly hysterical and
traumatized Conrad Truman almost immediately upon arrival of the first police officer. The
compelled and involuntary statements elicited from Conrad were then recorded and used as a
basis for the criminal prosecution, to include the use of the involuntary statements to
specifically charge obstruction of justice, and were thereafter mischaracterized and used at
every stage of the criminal case, including at the preliminary hearing, trial number one, and
upon retrial;
b. Officers CROOK, LOPEZ, FERRE, and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE illegally
detained and questioned Conrad at the Truman residence on the evening of September 30, 2012,
as they refused to take Conrad to the hospital to see his dying wife. Beginning with CROOKs
questioning of Conrad as he sat in a chair within feet of paramedics performing life saving
measures on his dying wife, and for approximately 50 minutes after paramedics took Heidy
away by ambulance, the Defendant Officers peppered Conrad with questions, interrogated him,
and recorded him, as they refused to allow him to leave, refused to take him to the hospital, and
refused to summons family, friends, or an attorney for aid and comfort. Conrad was clearly in
the throes of a horrific and gruesome traumatic event, under the effects of alcohol, in shock, and
was not thinking clearly.
In this state, CROOK, LOPEZ, FERRE, and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE compelled
Conrad to make statements without advising Conrad of his Miranda warnings or obtaining a
valid waiver, compelled him to make statements in his vulnerable mental state, and thereafter,
mischaracterized these compelled statements as inconsistent, evasive, untruthful and
109
indicative of a guilty mind. These compelled and involuntary statements were thereafter used
in the criminal case to develop investigatory leads, to initiate a criminal investigation, to bring
charges, to support the prosecution in a probable cause hearing, and used in both trial number
one and upon retrial, all in violation of the Fifth Amendment;27
c. Officer LOPEZ illegally detained and questioned Conrad Truman on the way to
the hospital, and thereafter, officers LOPEZ, RUIZ, and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE
illegally detained and questioned Conrad at the hospital on the evening of September 30, 2012
into the morning hours of October 1, 2012. Conrad was still in the throes of a traumatic event,
he had witnessed both a gruesome scene at the home as well as the grotesque and devastating
state of his loved one, his wife had died only moments prior, and Conrad was still under the
effects of alcohol, in shock, and not thinking clearly. LOPEZ, RUIZ, and OFFICER(S)
JOHN/JANE DOE kept Conrad in their control and custody, would not allow him to be alone
with Heidy either before or after she died, would not allow him to freely communicate with
family or provide him an attorney, and refused to allow him to freely move around the hospital
or the area.
In this state, LOPEZ, RUIZ, and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE compelled Conrad to
make statements without advising Conrad of his Miranda warnings or obtaining a valid waiver,
compelled him to make statements in his vulnerable mental state, and thereafter,
mischaracterized these compelled statements as inconsistent, evasive, untruthful and
indicative of a guilty mind. These compelled and involuntary statements were used in the
criminal case to develop investigatory leads, to initiate a criminal investigation, to bring
27
110
charges, to support the prosecution in a probable cause hearing, and used in both trial number
one and upon retrial, all in violation of the Fifth Amendment;28
d. Officer LOPEZ illegally detained and questioned Conrad Truman on the way from
the hospital to the police station, and thereafter, officers LOPEZ, RUIZ, CROOK, and
OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE illegally detained and questioned Conrad at the police station
for several hours in the early morning hours of October 1, 2012 after Heidys death. Officers
kept Conrad in their control and custody, would not allow him to freely communicate with
family or provide him an attorney, and questioned him without providing him his Miranda
warnings.
After Miranda warnings were eventually given, CROOK, RUIZ and OFFICER(S)
JOHN/JANE DOE continued to detain, interrogate, and accuse Conrad despite Conrads
affirmative requests and attempts to cease questioning and to leave. CROOK was particularly
cruel and baited, belittled, humiliated and accused Conrad of killing his wife, again, despite
Conrads affirmative requests and attempts to cease questioning and to leave. Conrad was still
in the throes of a traumatic event, he had witnessed a gruesome scene and the grotesque state of
his loved one, his wife had just died, and Conrad was still under the effects of alcohol, in shock,
and not thinking clearly. CROOK, RUIZ and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE kept Conrad in
their control and custody, would not allow him to freely communicate with family or provide
him an attorney, refused to allow him to freely move around the area, treated Conrad cruelly
and baited him, and compelled Conrad to make statements despite repeated requests to leave
and cease the interrogation.
28
111
In this state, CROOK, RUIZ and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE compelled Conrad to
make statements in his vulnerable mental state, and thereafter, mischaracterized these
compelled statements as inconsistent, evasive, untruthful and indicative of a guilty mind.
These compelled and involuntary statements were used in the criminal case to develop
investigatory leads, to initiate a criminal investigation, to bring charges, to support the
prosecution in a probable cause hearing, and used in both trial number one and upon retrial, all
in violation of the Fifth Amendment.29
including all DEFENDANT OFFICERS and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10, in the
proper observance of a citizens constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure
and self-incrimination, as well as proper and appropriate interrogation techniques, report
writing, the exercise of diligence in handling property, reporting investigation, disclosure of
investigation to the prosecution and to the defense in criminal proceedings, and in ensuring the
presentation of truthful testimony under oath.
430. The Defendants conduct violated the constitutional rights of the Plaintiff to be free
from unreasonable searches and seizures, compelled self-incrimination in a criminal case, and
the right to have an attorney present before any questioning occurs.
29
112
431. The Defendants conduct violated clearly established and fundamental constitutional
rights of which a reasonable person would have known.
432. No immunity defenses apply to Defendants since their conduct under state law
has violated Plaintiffs clearly established constitutional and statutory rights of which a
reasonable person would be aware. The actions of the Defendants were objectively
unreasonable.
433. The acts of Defendants as set forth above were done with malice or reckless indifference
to the Plaintiffs federally protected rights, thus entitling Plaintiff an award of punitive
damages.
434. The specific acts of CROOK, as set forth above, were done with particular malice or
reckless indifference to the Plaintiffs federally protected rights, thus entitling Plaintiff to an
award of punitive damages.
435. Defendants violations of Plaintiffs Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as
set forth above have caused Plaintiff serious personal, emotional, and psychological distress,
and Plaintiff was deprived of his right to be secure in his person against unreasonable seizure of
his person. Defendant Officers actions were demeaning, humiliating, emotionally abusive, and
caused him the loss of being with a dying loved one. Further, Defendants use of Plaintiffs
compelled and involuntary statements during the criminal case and two separate trials, as well
as Defendants mischaracterizations of the compelled and involuntary statements, resulted in
Plaintiffs faulty conviction in the first trial and 3 years of incarceration.
113
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE AND

PERVASIVE FALSE STATEMENTS OR OMISSIONS
IN SUPPORT OF WARRANTS AND INVESTIGATIVE SUBPOENAS
42 U.S.C. 1983 Violation of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Right
To Be Free From Unreasonable Search and Seizure
(As Against WALLACE, JOHNSON, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE,

ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, CITY and OCPD)
438. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth
Amendment also states that: no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by
Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or
things to be seized. U.S. Const., amend IV. The Fourth Amendment applies to the states
through incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
439. Affiants violate the Fourth Amendment when they make materially false statements in
affidavits intentionally, knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth, or knowingly or
recklessly omit information which, if included, would vitiate probable cause.30 In such a
situation, probable cause is measured by: removing any false information from the affidavit;
including any omitted material information; and then inquiring whether the modified affidavit
establishes probable cause for the warrant.
440. In Utah, the issuance of investigative subpoenas in criminal investigations is governed
by the Subpoena Powers for Aid of Criminal Investigation and Grants of Immunity Act,
codified in Utah Code Ann. 77-22-1, et. seq.
30
Accord Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).
114
a. The Act provides procedures for courts and prosecutors to follow when there is a
need to keep the investigative subpoenas secret. See Utah Code Ann. 77-22-2 (6)-(7);
b. While the Act allows information to be sought prior to the filing of criminal
charges, access to records must still comport with constitutional constraints, including the
Fourth Amendment proscriptions against unreasonable searches and seizure;31
c. Based upon the constitutional protections, the person holding an expectation of
privacy in the information sought by investigative subpoena must generally be notified of the
issuance of the subpoena in order to allow the person an opportunity to quash it;
d. Subpoena Powers Act subpoenas must each be supported by an application
establishing good cause for their issuance, as well as a showing that the requested information
is reasonably related to the criminal investigation authorized by the court.32
441. In this case, each and every warrant and investigative subpoena sought and obtained was
not supported by, and clearly devoid of, the requisite showing of probable cause for the warrant
or the requisite showing of good cause for the investigative subpoena.
As such, WALLACE and any OFFICER JOHN/JANE DOE who sought, obtained,
and/or executed the clearly invalid warrants and subpoenas, violated Plaintiffs right to be free
from unreasonable searches and seizures.
442. In this case, the affidavit in support of each and every warrant and investigative
subpoena contained pervasive materially false statements and/or omissions made intentionally,
knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth, which when corrected, vitiates probable
cause.
As such, WALLACE or other OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE as the affiant, and
31
See, e.g., Matter of Criminal Investigation, 7th Dist. Court No. CS1, 754 P.2d 633 (Utah 1988),
superceded by statute (on different grounds).
32
See, e.g., Utah Code Ann. 77-22-2 (2)-(3); In re Criminal Investigation, 754 P.2d at 638.
115
JOHNSON or any other defendant OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE or ATTORNEY(S)
JOHN/JANE DOE who provided information, gave advice, aided, supervised the preparation of
the affidavit, or authorized its presentment, and who made or authorized deliberately false
statements or material omissions intentionally and/or with reckless disregard or the truth,
violated Plaintiffs right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
443. The pervasive false statements, mischaracterizations and/or omissions contained in each
and every affidavit in support of warrants and investigative subpoenas were material to
the finding of probable cause or good cause for the authorization of each and every warrant
and/or investigative subpoena authorized by a court in this case.
444. Additionally, as to the investigative subpoenas, Conrad Truman had a right to privacy in
his personal documents and records. Because proper procedure was not followed in obtaining
the investigative subpoenas, because the requisite showings were not made, and because Conrad
was given no opportunity to object, his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable
searches and seizures was violated.
including WALLACE and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10, in the proper observance of
a citizens constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure, the importance and
inviolate nature of an oath, the absolute necessity that an affidavit under oath in support of a
warrant or subpoena be wholly truthful and accurate and not misleading in any manner, and in
ensuring the presentation of truthful testimony under oath.
116
447. The Defendants conduct violated the constitutional right of the Plaintiff to be free from
unconstitutional searches and seizures.
448. The Defendants conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional
rights prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures, the requirement of probable cause for the
issuance of warrants, and the prohibition against making false and misleading statements or
material omissions in sworn affidavits to a court of law, all rights of which a reasonable person
would have known.
449. No immunity defenses apply to Defendants since their conduct under state law has
violated Plaintiffs clearly established constitutional and statutory rights of which a reasonable
person would be aware. The actions of the defendants were objectively unreasonable.
450. JOHNSON is not entitled to immunity, absolute or otherwise, for his actions in the
investigative stages of this case and for his aid, advice, and presentment of false information to
a court of law, which violated Plaintiffs clearly established constitutional and statutory rights
of which a reasonable person would be aware. JOHNSON is also not entitled to immunity,
absolute or otherwise, with regard to any affidavit or other document he signed under oath in
presenting to a court of law.
damages.
452. Defendants violations of Plaintiffs Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as set
forth above have deprived Plaintiff of his right to be secure in his person against unreasonable
intrusion into his privacy and search of his person, property and effects.
117
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
UNLAWFUL ARREST WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE

(As Against WALLACE, CITY and OCPD)
456. An arrest is a seizure, and the Fourth Amendment prohibits police officers from
arresting a person unless there is probable cause to do so.
457. The Fourth Amendment also states that: no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable
cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched,
and the persons or things to be seized. U.S. Const., amend IV. Affiants violate the Fourth
Amendment when they make materially false statements in affidavits intentionally, knowingly,
or with reckless disregard for the truth, or knowingly or recklessly omit information which, if
included, would vitiate probable cause.33 In such a situation, probable cause is measured by:
removing any false information from the affidavit; including any omitted material information;
and then inquiring whether the modified affidavit establishes probable cause for the warrant.
458. On July 18, 2013, WALLACE signed under oath an affidavit in support of an arrest
warrant for Conrad Truman.
33
Accord Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).
118
459. On July 19, 2013, WALLACE and JOHNSON presented this affidavit and request for
an arrest warrant to District Court Judge Samuel McVey.
460. Judge McVey signed the arrest warrant and issued a one million dollar cash-only bail.
461. WALLACE obtained the arrest warrant by referring to fabricated evidence and making
false statements, mischaracterizations, and/or material omissions in the warrant affidavit that
created falsehoods.
462. The numerous false statements and/or omissions were material and misled the judicial
officer into issuing the arrest warrant without probable to support Conrads arrest in this case.
463. WALLACE made those false statements and/or omissions intentionally, knowingly, or
with reckless disregard for the truth.
464. When the fabricated and false information is removed from the affidavit in support of
the arrest warrant, and when omitted material information is added, the modified affidavit does
not establish probable cause for Conrads arrest.
465. WALLACEs conduct as stated violated the constitutional right of the Plaintiff to be
free from unconstitutional seizures.
a citizens constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure, the importance and
inviolate nature of an oath, the absolute necessity that an affidavit under oath in support of a
warrant or subpoena be wholly truthful and accurate and not misleading in any manner, and in
119
468. Defendants conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights
prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures, the requirement of probable cause for the
issuance of warrants, and the prohibition against fabricating evidence and making false and
misleading statements or material omissions in sworn affidavits to a court of law, all
fundamental rights of which a reasonable person would have known.
469. No immunity defenses apply here since Defendants conduct under state law has
person would be aware. Defendants actions were objectively unreasonable.
470. Defendants acts as set forth above were done with malice or reckless indifference to the
Plaintiffs federally protected rights, thus entitling Plaintiff an award of punitive damages.
forth above not only deprived Plaintiff of his right to be secure in his person against
unreasonable intrusion into his privacy and seizure of his person, but wrongfully deprived
Plaintiff of his liberty.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
UNLAWFUL PRETRIAL DETENTION

(As Against WALLACE, CROOK, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE 1-10, CITY and OCPD)
474. Defendants knowingly, intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth imprisoned
120
Conrad with no probable cause or reasonable grounds for believing that Conrad committed
murder or obstruction of justice, thereby unreasonably incarcerating Conrad for more than 3
years without any legal basis.
476. The Fourth Amendment establishes the standards and procedures governing pretrial
detention and prohibits law enforcement or other government officials from detaining a person
absent probable cause.34
477. The Fourth Amendment, standing alone, guarantees a fair and reliable determination of
probable cause as a condition for any significant pretrial restraint.35
478. The Fourth Amendments protections surrounding pretrial detention apply even after the
start of legal process in a criminal case that is, even after a judge's determination of
probable cause.36 Where legal process has gone forward, but has done nothing to satisfy the
probable cause requirement, it does not extinguish a detainee's Fourth Amendment claim.
479. In order to state a claim under these circumstances, Plaintiff must show that
defendant(s): caused; a seizure of the Plaintiff pursuant to legal process unsupported by
probable cause; and criminal proceedings terminated in plaintiff's favor.
480. Here, WALLACE, CROOK, and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE caused Plaintiffs
seizure pursuant to legal process unsupported by probable cause in two ways:
a. First, Plaintiff was arrested pursuant to a warrant on July19, 2013, and initially
34
See Manuel v. City of Joliet, Ill., 137 S. Ct. 911, 91415, 197 L. Ed. 2d 312 (2017) (citing
Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 111, 95 S.Ct. 854, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975)).
35
Manuel v. City of Joliet, Ill., 137 S. Ct. 911, 91718, 197 L. Ed. 2d 312 (2017).
36
See Manuel v. City of Joliet, Ill., 137 S. Ct. 911, 91415, 197 L. Ed. 2d 312 (2017) (citing
Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 274, 114 S.Ct. 807, 127 L.Ed.2d 114 (1994) (plurality opinion)).
121
detained for 5 months and 22 days until January 10, 2014, at which time the court found
probable cause for the bindover. The courts probable cause determination at the time of
authorizing arrest and in proceedings thereafter prior to the preliminary hearing, was based
upon WALLACEs, CROOKs, and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOEs fabricated evidence,
false statements and omissions in the arrest warrant affidavits, and false statements and
omissions relayed at Plaintiffs bail hearing. Plaintiffs detention was therefore unreasonable
because it was based solely on false evidence rather than truly supported by probable cause;
b. Second, Plaintiff was thereafter detained for 3 years, one month, and fourteen days
after the bindover order January 10, 2014 until his acquittal on February 24, 2017. The courts
probable cause determination at the time of bindover, which remained standing even after a new
trial was granted and throughout retrial, was again based upon WALLACEs, CROOKs, and
OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOEs fabricated evidence and false statements and omissions
presented at the preliminary hearing, and thereafter, false statements made under oath to a court
of law and to two juries.
481. The criminal proceedings ultimately terminated in Plaintiff's favor when he was
acquitted by a jury on February 24, 2017, after all of the falsehoods had been uncovered and
corrected.
482. Because the magistrates determination of probable cause in issuing the warrant of
arrest, as well as at the preliminary hearing, was based solely on fabricated evidence and false
statements and omissions, the probable cause findings do not expunge Plaintiffs Fourth
Amendment claim for his lengthy illegal pretrial detention absent probable cause.37
37
Accord Manuel v. City of Joliet, Ill., 137 S. Ct. 911, 91314 (2017).
122
a citizens constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure and due process, the
importance and inviolate nature of an oath, the absolute necessity that an affidavit under oath in
support of a warrant be wholly truthful and accurate and not misleading in any manner, and in
484. Also upon information and belief, CITY and the OCPD failed to properly train officers,
proper handling of evidence, the proper reporting of police activity, proper interview
techniques, and the exercise of diligence in handling property, reporting investigation,
disclosure of investigation to the prosecution and to the defense in criminal proceedings, and in
unconstitutional searches and seizures, specifically here, Plaintiffs continued and unreasonable
pretrial detention absent probable cause.
487. The Defendants conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights
prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures, the fair and reliable determination of probable
cause as a condition for any significant pretrial restraint, and the prohibition against fabricating
evidence and making false and misleading statements or material omissions in sworn affidavits
to a court of law, all fundamental rights of which a reasonable person would have known.
123
reasonable person would be aware. The actions of the defendants were objectively
unreasonable.
damages.
unreasonable seizure of his person, but wrongfully deprived Plaintiff of his liberty.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
To Be Free from Unreasonable Seizure and the Right Not to Be Deprived of Liberty
Without Due Process of Law
(As Against WALLACE, RUIZ, JOHNSON, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE,

ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, CITY and OCPD)
493. Defendants violated Plaintiffs constitutional rights by basing the arrest, preliminary
hearing, subsequent prosecution, and subsequent retrial, first upon fabricated and false
evidence, and thereafter, continuing the prosecution absent probable cause that Plaintiff
committed any crime, ultimately resulting in the deprivation of Plaintiffs liberty for more than
3 years.
124
495. The Fourth Amendment covers claims of malicious prosecution.
496. Unlike a false arrest or false imprisonment claim, malicious prosecution concerns
detention only after the institution of legal process. A malicious prosecution claim remedies
those detentions accompanied not by an absence of legal process, but by the wrongful
institution and continuation of the legal process.38
497. The initial seizure of plaintiff is governed by the Fourth Amendment, but at some point
after arrest, and certainly by the time of trial, and retrial, the constitutional analysis shifts to the
Due Process Clause. 39
498. Whether a Fourth Amendment or Due Process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment,
a malicious prosecution claim includes the following elements:
a. The Defendant caused the Plaintiffs prosecution;
b. The original action terminated in favor of the Plaintiff;
c. No probable cause supported the original arrest, continued confinement, or
prosecution;
d. Defendant acted with malice; and
e. The Plaintiff sustained damages.
38
The Tenth Circuit has noted:
Because a person unlawfully arrested without legal process can bring a

Fourth Amendment claim sounding in false imprisonment, . . ., the malicious
prosecution framework in a sense allows a second Fourth Amendment claim
to come on the heels of the first one. . . . But because the institution of legal
process separates the two claimsand thus makes them legally distinctwe
think the two claims, though grounded in the same constitutional provision,
can coexist.
Wilkins v. DeReyes, 528 F.3d 790, 799 (10th Cir. 2008) (citations to authority omitted).
39
See Pierce v. Gilchrist, 359 F.3d 1279, 128586 (10th Cir. 2004).
125
499. Defendants caused Plaintiffs prosecution in the following manner:
a. Defendant WALLACE, RUIZ, JOHNSON and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE
caused the plaintiff's prosecution as they presented fabricated evidence, false statements, and
false theories to the State Deputy Medical Examiner to secure his opinion, findings, and expert
testimony, that Heidy Trumans death was the result of a homicide;
b. Defendant WALLACE caused the plaintiff's arrest, continued confinement, pretrial
detention, continued confinement and criminal prosecution as he attested to fabricated evidence,
false statements, and false theories in the arrest warrant. Defendant JOHNSON is also liable for
presenting it, along with WALLACE, to a magistrate for signing. When the false and
misleading information is removed from the consideration, or when omitted material
information is included, the modified affidavit does not establish probable cause;
c. Defendant WALLACE caused the plaintiff's prosecution and continued confinement
as he attested to fabricated evidence, false statements, and false theories in the probable cause
statement supporting the filing of the criminal Information. Defendant JOHNSON is also liable
for signing the information under oath and presenting it to a court of law. When the false and
misleading information is removed from the consideration, or when omitted material
information is included, the modified statement does not establish probable cause;
d. Defendant WALLACE, CROOK, RUIZ, JOHNSON, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE
DOE and ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE caused the Plaintiff's prosecution and continued
confinement as their fabricated evidence, false statements and false theories were presented to a
court as part of warrant affidavits; were presented to a court at a bail hearing; and thereafter,
were presented to a court at a state preliminary hearing in order to support probable cause to
bind Conrad over for trial. When the false and misleading information is removed from the
consideration, or when omitted material information is included, the modified evidence does
126
not establish probable cause;
e. Defendant WALLACE, CROOK, JOHNSON, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE
DOE and ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE caused the Plaintiff's prosecution and continued
confinement as their fabricated evidence, false statements and false theories were presented to a
jury, which resulted in a false conviction;
f. After the first trial and after fabricated evidence was uncovered, Defendants
WALLACE, CROOK, JOHNSON, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, and ATTORNEY(S)
JOHN/JANE DOES continued to lie and not tell the truth, thereby causing Conrads continued
incarceration and continued prosecution.
g. Upon information and belief, CITY and the OCPD failed to properly train officers,
proper observance of a citizens constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure
and due process, the importance and inviolate nature of an oath, the absolute necessity that an
affidavit under oath in support of a warrant be wholly truthful and accurate and not misleading
in any manner, and in ensuring the presentation of truthful testimony under oath.
h. Also upon information and belief, CITY and the OCPD failed to properly train
officers, including all DEFENDANT OFFICERS and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10,
in the proper handling of evidence, the proper reporting of police activity, proper interview
i. Instead, and upon information and belief, CITY and the OCPD have created an
127
500. The original action terminated in favor of the Plaintiff. After the truth was uncovered
and presented to a jury upon retrial, absent the falsehood and lies, the Plaintiff was acquitted of
both charges on February 24, 2017.
501. No probable cause supported the original arrest, continued confinement, or prosecution,
but instead, the original arrest, continued confinement and continued prosecution was based
upon fabricated, mischaracterized, and knowingly false evidence and theories as set forth herein
and throughout this complaint, and incorporated fully in this paragraph.
502. Defendants acted with malice or for a purpose other than bringing the plaintiff to justice.
a. Defendants caused this criminal prosecution, even though they knew or should have
known there was insufficient evidence to move forward;
b. Prior to trial number one, Defendants caused the criminal prosecution to continue
even though Defendants knew their evidence was incorrect, false and misleading, all in an
attempt to cover up their own mistakes, faulty judgments, misdeeds, and wrongdoing;
c. After trial number one, even when the errors and misdeeds were uncovered,
Defendants caused the criminal prosecution to continue, maintained their false positions and
continued prosecution, all in an attempt to cover up their own mistakes, faulty judgments,
misdeeds, and wrongdoing;
d. Malice may also be inferred from the absence of probable cause.
503. Plaintiff sustained damages, including but not limited to:
a. Incarceration for over 3 years even though Conrad was innocent of the charges;
b. Loss of employment;
c. Considerable humiliation, mortification, substantial emotional distress, severe
128
opprobrium from the community, which he still encounters due to the false impression that he
committed this gruesome murder; and
d. While falsely imprisoned, Truman suffered discomfort and injury to his health and
psyche, as well as loss of time and deprivation from his family, friends, and society.
unconstitutional searches and seizures as well as the right not to be deprived of liberty
without due process of law.
505. The Defendants conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional
rights prohibiting unreasonable seizures, the fair and reliable determination of probable cause as
a condition for any significant pretrial restraint, and the prohibition against fabricating evidence
and making false and misleading statements or material omissions in to a court of law, all
fundamental rights of which a reasonable person would have known.
reasonable person would be aware. The actions of the defendants were objectively
unreasonable.
investigative stages of this case and for his aid, advice, and presentment of false information to
the Deputy Medical Examiner and to a court of law, which violated Plaintiffs clearly
established constitutional and statutory rights of which a reasonable person would be aware.
JOHNSON is also not entitled to immunity, absolute or otherwise, with regard to any affidavit
or other document he signed under oath in presenting to a court of law.
129
damages.
unreasonable seizure of his person, but wrongfully deprived Plaintiff of his liberty without due
process of law.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
MANUFACTURING AND/OR FABRICATING INCULPATORY EVIDENCE

AND WITHHOLDING EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE
To Be Free from Unreasonable Search and Seizure and
Right Not to Be Deprived of Liberty Without Due Process of Law
(As Against WALLACE, CROOK, JOHNSON, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE,

ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, CITY, and OCPD)
512. Here, Defendants violated Plaintiffs constitutional rights by fabricating and falsifying
inculpatory evidence and testimony.
513. Falsifying evidence can amount to either a Fourth Amendment violation and/or a Due
Process violation.40
514. Withholding exculpatory information can amount to either a Fourth Amendment
violation and/or a Due Process violation,41 but the duties to disclose and preserve impeachment
and other exculpatory evidence are grounded in the due process right to a fair trial.
515. Both police officers and prosecutors can be liable under the Due Process Clause,
40
41
130
pursuant to 1983, for fabricating and withholding exculpatory evidence.
516. Defendants WALLACE, CROOK, RUIZ, JOHNSON, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE
DOE and ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, intentionally, knowingly and/or with reckless
disregard for the truth fabricated inculpatory evidence by extracting a severely flawed and
tainted expert opinion from Dr. Leis that Heidy Truman death was a homicide prior to the
existence of probable cause to arrest Conrad, in order to use his opinion to wrongfully arrest,
prosecute, bindover and convict.
517. Defendants WALLACE, CROOK, JOHNSON, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE and
ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, intentionally, knowingly and/or with reckless disregard
for the truth, fabricated a financial motive to support Conrads charge and prosecution of
the murder of Heidy Truman, even though no such financial motive existed. Far from
implicating him, a lack of financial motive tended to exonerate him.
518. Defendants WALLACE, CROOK, JOHNSON, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE and
ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, intentionally, knowingly and/or with reckless disregard for
the truth, fabricated distance traveled evidence, diagrams, and testimony which
represented that Heidy Truman traveled a substantial distance from the hallway area where she
fell, and thereby supported Conrads charge and prosecution of the murder of Heidy Truman,
even though the evidence was completely false and fabricated. Far from implicating him, the
true evidence of the location of Heidy Trumans body tended to exonerate him.
519. Defendants WALLACE, CROOK, RUIZ, LOPEZ, JOHNSON, OFFICER(S)
JOHN/JANE DOE and ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, intentionally, knowingly and/or
with reckless disregard for the truth, fabricated testimony that Conrad made inconsistent
statements of fact knowingly and with mal intent, which supported Conrads charge and
prosecution for both obstruction of justice and the murder of Heidy Truman, even though the
131
evidence was completely false and fabricated. Defendant Officers knew and were well aware
that Conrad told a consistent rendition of material events, and importantly, that the statements
Conrad made were involuntary, unreliable, and not made as statements of fact, but were
responses and questions posed by a man in the throes of shock and trauma.
520. Defendants, WALLACE, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOES, and ATTORNEY(S)
JOHN/JANE DOE, intentionally, knowingly and/or with reckless disregard for the truth,
fabricated a false 94-second completed call minutes before the 911 call, in order to undercut
Conrads credibility because he had no explanation for the call and was characterized as
evasive. Cell phone records within Defendant Officers own files showed that this was not a
completed call, that the call went to voicemail and was retrieved, and when viewed in
conjunction with the other physical and forensics evidence, put Heidy within arms reach of her
black-handled gun approximately three minutes prior to the 911 call.
521. Defendants, WALLACE, JOHNSON, ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE and
OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, intentionally, knowingly and/or with reckless disregard for
the truth, fabricated a justification as to why the GSR samples were not tested, falsely
claiming because GSR testing is not reliable and that nobody does the testing anymore.
Relatedly, Defendants, WALLACE, JOHNSON, LOPEZ, ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE
and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, intentionally, knowingly and/or with reckless disregard
for the truth, fabricated testimony that Conrad actually manipulatively asked to wash his hands,
and then only thereafter, requested that his hands be tested for GSR, as yet another justification
as to why the GSR samples were not tested. These justifications were fabricated and
concocted in order to cover up the fact that law enforcement failed to preserve Conrads hands,
and additionally, that law enforcement may have lost, destroyed, or failed to preserve other
potential GSR samples that were material to this case.
132
522. Also, Defendants WALLACE, JOHNSON, ATTORNEY(s) JOHN/JANE DOE and
OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, knowingly, intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the
truth hid, failed to disclose and/or destroyed a substantial amount of exculpatory evidence that
they knew would have vitiated probable cause to arrest, prosecute, and imprison Conrad,
including:
a. Failure to disclose and hid the 96-slide Power Point presentation given to Dr. Leis
and other information provided to him in the July 2013 meeting with JOHNSON, WALLACE,
and RUIZ;
b. Failure to test exculpatory GSR results from the samples taken from Heidy
Trumans hands;
c. Failure to disclose and hid the fact that the Wagner Family, and specifically Janet
Wagner, had called to make a claim or freeze insurance benefits within months of Heidys
death;
d. Failure to disclose and hid the fact that Heidy had a troubled relationship with the
Wagner Family and her mother, had a hard childhood, and had an adverse family upbringing
which not only is a suicide risk factor, but because the family was somewhat estranged,
discredited their knowledge of Heidy personal thoughts, feelings, and potential conduct as well
as their knowledge of Conrad and his relationship with Heidy;
e. Failure to disclose and hid that the Englert Team concluded that they could not
ascertain how Heidy was shot, where Heidy was located when she was shot, and where Conrad
was located when the shot occurred;
f. Failure to disclose and hid evidence and testimony surrounding the 94-second phone
call and the fact that the voice mail was retrieved by Heidy approximately three minutes prior to
the 911 call;
133
g. Failure to disclose, hid and destroyed evidence, notes, and testimony surrounding the
faulty measurements and the truth surrounding who measured, when, and how;
h. Failure to disclose, hid and destroyed witness statements and notes, including
exculpatory statements provided by witnesses, including exculpatory statements made by
financial planner John Engh;
i. WALLACEs hiding and deletion of police report statements indicating the couple
was not struggling financially;
j. It appears that beyond samples taken from Conrad and Heidys hands, additional
GSR samples were taken from other items of evidence and those samples were lost or
destroyed. Given the concerted effort by Defendants to fabricate evidence and probable cause, it
is a reasonable inference that OFFICERS JOHN/JANE DOE intentionally destroyed this
evidence;
523. All of the fabricated and false evidence was used throughout the proceedings, to support
the findings of the Deputy Medical Examiner, to support warrants and investigative subpoenas,
to support the arrest warrant, to support the criminal Information, to support the denial of
reduced bail, to support bindover at the preliminary hearing, and ultimately to support Conrads
prosecution, detention, and conviction in trial number one.
524. Similarly, the withheld material exculpatory information was not considered throughout
the initial proceedings, which ultimately resulted in Conrads conviction in trial number one.
including WALLACE, DEFENDANT OFFICERS, and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10,
in the proper observance of a citizens constitutional rights against unreasonable search and
seizure and fundamental due process, the importance and inviolate nature of an oath, the
absolute necessity that an affidavit under oath in support of a warrant be wholly truthful and
134
accurate and not misleading in any manner, and in ensuring the presentation of truthful
testimony under oath.
526. Also upon information and belief, CITY and the OCPD failed to properly train officers,
proper handling of evidence, the proper reporting of police activity, proper interview
unconstitutional searches and seizures as well as the right not to be deprived of liberty
without due process of law.
prohibiting unreasonable seizures, the fair and reliable determination of probable cause as a
condition for any significant pretrial restraint, and the prohibition against fabricating evidence,
making false and misleading statements or material omissions in or to a court of law, or
withholding exculpatory evidence, all fundamental rights of which a reasonable person would
have known.
530. No immunity defenses apply to Defendants since their conduct under state law has
person would be aware. The actions of the defendants were objectively unreasonable.
135
531. A prosecutor's fabrication of false evidence during preliminary investigation of potential
crime is not entitled to absolute immunity. Therefore, JOHNSON is not entitled to immunity,
absolute or otherwise, for his actions in fabricating, directing or aiding in the fabrication of
evidence or testimony, which violated Plaintiffs clearly established constitutional and statutory
rights of which a reasonable person would be aware.
investigative stages of this case and for his aid and advice, and presentment of false information
to the Deputy Medical Examiner and to a court of law, which violated Plaintiffs clearly
established constitutional and statutory rights of which a reasonable person would be aware.
533. JOHNSON is not entitled to immunity, absolute or otherwise, with regard to any
affidavit or other document he signed under oath in presenting to a court of law which
contained materially false statements, mischaracterizations, or omissions, which violated
Plaintiffs clearly established constitutional and statutory rights of which a reasonable person
would be aware.
damages.
unreasonable seizure of his person, but wrongfully deprived Plaintiff of his liberty without due
process of law.
136
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
UTAH STATE CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION

Denial of Right to Information and Preliminary Hearing
42 U.S.C. 1983 Violation of Utah State Constitution art. 1 13
(As Against WALLACE, CROOK, JOHNSON, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE

DOE, ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE, CITY and OCPD)
538. Defendants flagrantly violated Plaintiffs constitutional right to a preliminary hearing
under the Utah Constitutions self executing provision requiring that criminal offenses in Utah
be prosecuted by either information after examination and commitment by a magistrate, or by
indictment.
539. Utah Const. art. I, 13 provides:
Offenses heretofore required to be prosecuted by indictment, shall be

prosecuted by information after examination and commitment by a
magistrate, unless the examination be waived by the accused with the
consent of the State, or by indictment, with or without such examination
and commitment. The formation of the grand jury and the powers and
duties thereof shall be as prescribed by the Legislature.
Utah Const. art. I, 13 (emphasis added).
540. Prosecutors in the State of Utah do not regularly use the indictment process, and Utahs
criminal justice system is predominantly one of charging by criminal Information.
541. The examination to which Art. I, 13 refers is an evidentiary hearing that takes place
after the arrest of the defendant and the examination required is equivalent to the preliminary
hearing contemplated by Rules 7(h) and 7(g) of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure, which
requires a showing of probable cause.42

42
See State v. Hernandez, 2011 UT 70, 28, 268 P.3d 822, 830.
137
542. In either event, a prosecution must be based upon both a showing and determination of
probable cause, either to and by the Grand Jury if proceeding by way of indictment, or through
the information and examination process if proceeding by way of criminal Information.
543. If prosecuting by way of information and examination, there must be a showing of
probable cause at a preliminary hearing by presenting sufficient evidence to establish that the
crime charged has been committed and that the defendant has committed it.
544. An accused may not be detained and held for trial absent probable cause that a crime has
been committed and that he committed it.
545. The preliminary hearing is an essential step in the criminal process and a defendant
cannot be tried and convicted for an offense distinct from that upon which he was bound over
from a preliminary hearing.
546. Art. I, 13 of the Utah Constitution is a self-executing provision as it articulates a rule
sufficient to give effect to the underlying rights and duties intended by the framers and because
no ancillary legislation is necessary to the enjoyment of [the] right given, or the enforcement of
a duty imposed. . .43
547. When a plaintiff brings suit under a self executing Utah constitutional clause, no notice
of claim is required.
548. In order to state a State Constitutional claim, a Plaintiff must prove:
a. that the constitutional violation was flagrant;
b. that existing remedies do not redress the injuries;
c. and that equitable relief is wholly inadequate to protect the Plaintiffs rights.
549. A flagrant violation means that a defendant must have violated clearly established
constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

43
Spackman v. Box Elder School Dist., 16 P.3d 533,535 (Utah 2000).
138
550. Here, Defendants flagrantly violated Trumans rights as follows:
a. WALLACE submitted fabricated and false statements and material omissions
under oath in the probable cause statement of the criminal Information, which were then
relied upon to support probable cause for the initiation of prosecution and further relied upon to
detain and incarcerate Conrad. JOHNSON drafted the criminal Information which included the
probable cause statements, and also signed it under oath upon presentment to a court of law, and
did so with knowledge and awareness that the statement contained fabricated and false
statements and material omissions. In doing so, WALLACE and JOHNSON violated clearly
established constitutional rights requiring a finding of probable cause based upon truthful and
accurate evidence of which a reasonable person would have known;
b. WALLACE, JOHNSON, and RUIZ presented fabricated and false statements and
material omissions to Dr. Leis, which tainted his expert opinion and manner of death
determination of homicide which was in turn thereafter presented and relied upon by the
magistrate in making the probable cause determination at the preliminary hearing. In doing so,
Defendants violated clearly established constitutional rights requiring a finding of probable
cause based upon truthful and accurate evidence of which a reasonable person would have
known;
c. WALLACE, CROOK, JOHNSON, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE and
ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE presented manufactured, fabricated and false
statements, evidence and material omissions during the preliminary hearing which was
relied upon by the magistrate in making the probable cause determination at the preliminary
hearing. In doing so, Defendants violated clearly established constitutional rights requiring a
finding of probable cause based upon truthful and accurate evidence of which a reasonable
person would have known;
139
d. WALLACE, CROOK, JOHNSON, OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE and
ATTORNEY(S) JOHN/JANE DOE omitted exculpatory evidence at the preliminary hearing
which was not considered by the magistrate in making the probable cause determination, but had
it been, would have vitiated probable cause. By these omissions of material exculpatory
information, Defendants violated clearly established constitutional rights requiring a finding of
probable cause based upon truthful and accurate evidence of which a reasonable person would
have known;
e. Upon information and belief, CITY and the OCPD failed to properly train officers,
including WALLACE and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10, in the proper observance of a
citizens constitutional rights and fundamental due process, the importance and inviolate nature
of an oath, the absolute necessity that an affidavit under oath in support of a warrant or charging
document be wholly truthful and accurate and not misleading in any manner, and in ensuring the
presentation of truthful testimony under oath;
f. Also upon information and belief, CITY and the OCPD failed to properly train
officers, including all DEFENDANT OFFICERS and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10, in
the proper handling of evidence, the proper and truthful reporting of police activity, the exercise
of diligence in handling property, the proper and truthful reporting of an investigation, full
ensuring the presentation of truthful testimony and evidence under oath;
g. Instead, and upon information and belief, CITY and the OCPD have created an
140
551. Based upon Defendants actions, Conrad was charged, detained, tried and retried a
second time, even though there was no probable cause to support a bindover. Specifically:
a. The initial probable cause and bindover decision was based upon the fabricated, false,
and misleading testimony and evidence;
b. Thereafter, even after the state court granted a new trial, and even after Conrad
established that the material evidence supporting probable cause for the initial bindover had been
discredited, disproved, and shown to be false, Conrad was not released but remained incarcerated
and retried in a second trial, even though no evidence remained sufficient to establish
probable cause or to support the previous bindover.
552. Because the true and accurate evidence did not establish probable cause, Conrad should
have been immediately released and the case dismissed.
553. Instead, Conrads requests to quash the previous bindover or for a new preliminary
hearing were opposed, almost summarily denied, and the state court relied upon the tainted
evidence and the tainted probable cause findings made previously at the preliminary hearing.
554. Plaintiff was thereby effectively incarcerated and faced trial without the filing of an
Information supported by true probable cause, and was also incarcerated and faced trial without
the finding of true probable cause at a preliminary hearing, violative of his rights under Utah
Const. Art. I, 13.
555. Plaintiff has no existing remedies to redress this state constitutional violation, since he
has already suffered the harm of being falsely charged, bound-over on false evidence and
imprisoned for over 3 years because of the wrongful conduct of the Defendants. Conrad was
only released when the outrageous falsehoods and conduct of Defendants was discovered, and
then, only after a second trial without having had any ability afforded to him to address and
invoke his right to a preliminary hearing and probable cause determination.
141
556. There is no other equitable relief that is in any way adequate, and is in fact wholly
inadequate, to redress violation of the constitutional guarantee that a person cannot be
imprisoned, and forced to face trial except upon a preliminary hearing and except upon probable
cause. Only a legal remedy is available.
557. The Defendants conduct violated the constitutional right of the Plaintiff to an
Information and Preliminary Hearing based upon probable cause, and to dismissal and release if
such probable cause is not established.
prohibiting the fair and reliable determination of probable cause as a condition for any
significant pretrial restraint and before facing trial under the consitution of Utah, as well as the
clear prohibitions against fabricating evidence, making false and misleading statements or
material omissions in or to a court of law, or withholding exculpatory evidence, all fundamental
rights of which a reasonable person would have known.
reasonable person would be aware. The actions of the defendants were objectively unreasonable.
560. A prosecutor's fabrication of false evidence during preliminary investigation of potential
crime is not entitled to absolute immunity. Therefore, JOHNSON is not entitled to immunity,
absolute or otherwise, for his actions in fabricating, directing or aiding in the fabrication of
evidence or testimony, which violated Plaintiffs clearly established constitutional and statutory
rights of which a reasonable person would be aware, and which served to then taint the probable
cause determination and violate Plaintiffs state constitutional right to prosecution by
Information and preliminary hearing.
142
investigative stages of this case and for his aid and advice, and presentment of false information
to the Deputy Medical Examiner and to a court of law, which violated Plaintiffs clearly
established constitutional and statutory rights of which a reasonable person would be aware, and
which served to then taint the probable cause determination and violate Plaintiffs state
constitutional right to prosecution by Information and preliminary hearing.
562. JOHNSON is not entitled to immunity, absolute or otherwise, with regard to any
affidavit or other document he signed under oath in presenting to a court of law which contained
materially false statements, mischaracterizations, or omissions, which violated Plaintiffs clearly
established constitutional and statutory rights of which a reasonable person would be aware, and
which served to then taint the probable cause determination and violate Plaintiffs state
constitutional right to prosecution by Information and preliminary hearing.
to the Plaintiffs constitutionally protected rights, thus entitling Plaintiff an award of punitive
damages.
564. Defendants violations of Plaintiffs State Constutional rights as set forth above not only
deprived Plaintiff of his right to be secure in his person against unreasonable seizure of his
person, but wrongfully deprived Plaintiff of his liberty without due process of law and
specifically, Plaintiffs state constitutional right to prosecution by Information and preliminary
hearing.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
FUNDAMENTAL UNFAIRNESS OF CRIMINAL TRIAL

42 U.S.C. 1983 Violation of Fourteenth Amendment Right
To Procedural and Substantive Due Process
(As Against ALL DEFENDANTS)
143
567. Plaintiff has a protected liberty interest in freedom from incarceration by the State except
upon conviction after a trial that complies with all constitutional requirements.
568. By engaging in one or more of the following acts and as further detailed above, each
Defendant acting knowingly, intentionally and/or with reckless disregard for the truth, played an
individual and essential role in ensuring that Plaintiffs prosecution and criminal proceedings
lacked fundamental fairness to a degree that shocks the universal sense of justice, including:
a. compelling unreliable and involuntary statements from an innocent man who was
traumatized and in shock, and thereafter, mischaracterizing those statements and using them
against him throughout the entirety of the criminal proceedings and at two trials;
b. misleading and making false statements and material omissions to the Deputy State
Medical Examiner in order to secure an expert opinion of homicide;44
c. making continued and pervasive false statements and material omissions throughout
the entire investigation and criminal proceedings, including under oath in affidavits for warrants,
investigative subpoenas, and charging documents; to the court itself; to defense counsel; to every
expert; and to two juries;45
d. altering, hiding, failing to disclose, and/or making false police reports;
44
Overall, with regard to Dr. Leis, the Defendants: 1) made misleading and false statements to
Dr. Leis in order to secure his determination that the manner of death was homicide; 2) failed to disclose
these statements and the presentation given to Dr. Leis to the defense; 3) presented a new and different
diagram at trial to Dr. Leis without informing him, trial counsel, the court, or the jury of the differences;
and 4) during new trial proceedings, made affirmatively false representations to both the court and
defense counsel related to the failure to disclose exculpatory evidence and the faulty information
presented to Dr. Leis.
45
The significance of the overwhelming misrepresentations goes well-beyond the illegal
gathering of evidence and exhibits a callous disregard for the sanctity of an oath, the duties of ministers of
justice, candor to the tribunal, and respect for the constitutional rights of the citizenry.
144
e. failing to preserve, destroying, hiding, and/or withholding exculpatory evidence;
f. manufacturing and/or fabricating inculpatory evidence designed to facilitate
Conrads arrest, prosecution, continued confinement and use of this evidence to secure a false
conviction;46
g. committing and suborning perjury; and
h. fabricating probable cause to arrest, prosecute, and thereafter, to continue to confine
and reprosecute Plaintiff despite a complete lack of probable cause and with the great weight of
evidence pointing to factual innocence.
569. Upon information and belief, CITY and the OCPD also failed to properly train officers,
proper observance of a citizens constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure and
fundamental due process,, the importance and inviolate nature of an oath, the absolute necessity
that an affidavit under oath be wholly truthful and accurate and not misleading in any manner,
and in ensuring the presentation of truthful testimony under oath.
570. Also upon information and belief, CITY and the OCPD failed to properly train
officers, including all DEFENDANT OFFICERS and OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10, in
proper interrogation techniques, proper handling of evidence, proper and truthful reporting of
police activity, the exercise of diligence in handling property, the proper and truthful reporting of
an investigation, full disclosure of investigation to the prosecution and to the defense in criminal
proceedings, and in ensuring the presentation of truthful testimony and evidence under oath.
46
Including: 1) the manufacturing of the lynchpin distance traveled evidence including false
and misleading depictions of the scene, location and dimensions of Heidy Trumans body, measurements,
and diagrams; 2) the manufacturing of the second lynchpin financial motive evidence; and 3)
presenting other false evidence and theories including offering false explanations for not sending the GSR
for analysis, claiming Conrad knowingly made inconsistent statements, claiming Conrad posed true
threats to officers, and claiming that the cell phone records showed a 94-second phone call which did not
exist.
145
572. Although Conrad Truman has been acquitted, the actions of Defendants described herein
caused Conrad Truman to be unconstitutionally arrested, prosecuted, convicted, retried, and
confined for over 3 years and such actions were so egregious and were carried out in manner
that shocks the judicial conscience, that they constitute deprivations of a Constitutional
dimension.
573. Due to the actions of each Defendant, the entirety of Conrad Trumans criminal
proceedings, including both jury trials, lacked even the most basic fundamental fairness to a
degree that shocks the universal sense of justice.
574. Defendants violations of Plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment right as set forth above also
wrongfully deprived Plaintiff of his liberty without due process of law.
to the Plaintiffs federally protected rights, thus entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive
damages.
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
UNLAWFUL POLICY, PRACTICE, AND/OR CUSTOM

42 U.S.C. 1983 Violation of the Fourth, Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution
(As against CITY and OCPD)
146
578. This cause of action is brought by Plaintiff against CITY and the OCPD for its practice,
custom and policy that lead and allowed DEFENDANT OFFICERS to deprive Plaintiff of his
constitutional rights as noted throughout this complaint within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 1983.
579. At all times relevant to this Complaint, the DEFENDANT OFFICERS were law
enforcement officers with the OCPD and were, therefore, acting under the direction and control
of that department and the Defendant CITY.
580. Upon information and belief, prior to September 30, 2012, CITY and OCPD developed
and maintained policies and customs using deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of
persons in the city which directly and materially contributed to, and proximately caused, the
violation of Plaintiffs rights stated here and throughout this Complaint.
581. Acting under the color of law, pursuant to official policy and practice, the CITY and
OCPD (through its law enforcement officers), knowingly, recklessly, and with deliberate
indifference and callous disregard for Plaintiffs rights, failed to train, instruct, supervise,
manage, control and/or discipline on a continuing basis DEFENDANT OFFICERS concerning
their duties to refrain from, among others acts:
a. Employing improper and unconstitutional searches and seizures;
b. Employing improper and unconstitutional interrogation techniques leading to
compelled, involuntary, unreliable and/or faulty statements, confessions, and/or admissions from
citizens;
c. Making false statements in police reports;
d. Altering police reports and obstructing justice;
e. Improper handling of evidence or property;
f. Fabricating or manufacturing evidence;
147
g. Making untruthful, inaccurate and incomplete reports of police activity;
h. Failing to fully disclose investigation to the prosecution and to the defense in
criminal proceedings;
i. Lieing and/or presenting knowingly false information, impressions, or evidence
under oath to a court or to members of a jury;
j. Presenting false statements, mischaracterization, and/or omissions in affidavits
for warrants, subpoenas, and charging documents, and failing to follow proper procedures in
obtaining and executing warrants and investigative subpoenas;
k. Otherwise depriving citizens and the Plaintiff of guaranteed constitutional and
statutory rights, privileges, and immunities.
582. On information and belief, CITY and the OCPD had knowledge, or had it diligently
exercised its duties to instruct, manage, supervise, control, train and discipline on a continuing
basis, should have had knowledge that the wrongs in this matter were about to be (or were being)
committed by its officers, including DEFENDANT OFFICERS.
583. Instead of properly training, instructing, supervising, controlling, and disciplining its
officers on a continuing basis, CITY and the OCPD continued the violations committed by the
DEFENDANT OFFICERS by filing criminal charges against Plaintiff, and thereafter, promoting
or otherwise rewarding and encouraging some of the DEFENDANT OFFICERS for their actions
and conduct in this case.
584. Said prosecution continued and Plaintiff faced continued incarceration and retrial even
after the DEFENDANT OFFICERS misdeeds were discovered and it was shown and
established, at times even conceded, that DEFENDANT OFFICERS in this case not only
violated Plaintiffs constitutional rights as detailed herein, but made fundamental errors in their
investigation; misrepresented their investigation; mishandled evidence; tainted witnesses and
148
witness testimony; made false, inaccurate and incomplete statements in police reports; altered
police reports; failed to disclose exculpatory evidence; fabricated and manufactured inculpatory
evidence; and pervasively lied under oath not only in affidavits, but in testimony before a court
of law on multiple occasions.
585. Upon information and belief, the CITY and OCPD was made aware of the commission of
the constitutional violations specifically committed against Plaintiff, and did nothing to stop or
prevent the continuing harm to Plaintiff.
586. Upon information and belief, the CITY and OCPD had the power and ability to prevent
and/or aid in the prevention of the commission of the constitutional violations specifically
committed against Plaintiff, and should have done so by reasonable diligence.
587. Upon information and belief, the CITY and OCPD failed or refused to do so, and thus,
the CITY and OCPD knowingly, recklessly or with deliberate indifference and/or callous
disregard of Plaintiffs rights violated their clearly established duties in this matter.
588. Upon information and belief, it was the policy and/or custom of the CITY and OCPD to
inadequately supervise and train its police officers, including the DEFENDANT OFFICERS,
thereby failing to adequately discourage further constitutional violations on the part of its police
force.
589. Upon information and belief, the CITY and OCPD have created an institutional culture
supporting and encouraging constitutional violations such as those alleged herein and, in so
doing, directly and materially contributed to, and proximately caused, the violations described
herein.
590. Upon information and belief, the CITY and OCPD did not provide appropriate in-service
training or retraining of officers who were known to engage in police misconduct.
591. Upon information and belief, the CITY and OCPD directly or indirectly, under color of
149
state law, approved or ratified the unlawful, deliberate, malicious, reckless, and/or wanton
conduct of police officers heretofore described.
592. As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional acts of Defendants CITY and
OCPD as set forth above, Plaintiff has suffered, among other harms: emotional distress; mental
anguish; substantial loss of liberty and continued incarceration for over 3 years; the stigma
and loss of reputation and good will associated with this arrest, false conviction and continued
prosecution; and the costs associated with defending, twice, against the false claims.
to the Plaintiffs constitutionally protected rights, thus entitling Plaintiff an award of punitive
damages.
DAMAGES
594. As a direct and proximate result of the above and foregoing acts by the Defendants,
Plaintiff has suffered injuries and damages, including but not limited to:
a. Violations of Plaintiffs constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution to be free from unreasonable search and seizure
of his person and effects;
b. Violations of Plaintiffs constitutional rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution against compelled and involuntary self-
incrimination;
c. Violations of Plaintiffs constitutional rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution to fair and Due Process before life and liberty are
taken;
d. Loss of personal liberty and sustained incarceration of an innocent man;
e. Loss and damage to personal property as proven at trial;
150
f. Loss of reputation and good will;
g. Emotional and sustained trauma suffered not only as the proximate result of his
treatment by law enforcement in the moments, hours, days, and months following his wifes
traumatic death, but as the proximate result of the prosecution and wrongful incarceration of an
innocent man;
h. Loss of employment and wages and the impairment of future employment;
i. As the proximate result of the Defendants illegal conduct in this matter, Plaintiff
incurred significant attorneys fees and costs associated with defense at first trial, in an amount
to be proven at trial;
j. As the proximate result of the Defendants illegal conduct in this matter, Plaintiff
incurred significant attorneys fees and costs associated with further investigation, the motion for
new trial proceedings, and a second trial, in an amount to be proven at trial.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff requests a jury trial on all issues in this case.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands Judgment against Defendants as follows:
1. Actual economic damages as established at trial;
2. Compensatory damages, including, but not limited to, those for past and future
pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses, emotional distress, suffering, loss of reputation,
humiliation, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other non pecuniary
losses;
3. Special damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
4. Punitive damages for all claims allowed by law in an amount to be determined at
trial;
151
5. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the highest lawful rate;
6. Attorney's fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988; and
7. Any other relief this Court deems just and proper, to include but not be limited to
declaratory judgment and/or injunctive relief, barring ALL Defendants, including Orem City,
OCPD, and their officers, agents, and/or employees from similar misconduct in the future.
DATED this 12th day of July, 2017.
/s/ Lincoln Hobbs

/s/ Sarah Orme
______________________
LINCOLN HOBBS
SARAH ORME
HOBBS & OLSON | CARPENTER HAZLEWOOD
Attorneys for Plaintiff Conrad Truman
K:\AMT\P\6123.wpd
152
Case 2:17-cv-00775-TS Document 2-1 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 8

Truman Lawsuit

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Truman Lawsuit

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

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

LINCOLN HOBBS (#4848)

MARK R. MOFFAT (#5112)

Attorneys for Plaintiff Conrad Truman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

OREM CITY, a Utah municipality; OREM COMPLAINT

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

counsel, complains and alleges against Defendants as follows:

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

Constitution of the State of Utah.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

provision under Art. 1, 13.

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

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

below, in amounts to be proved at trial.

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

agents and the officers employed by them.

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

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

in the criminal prosecution of Conrad Truman.

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

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

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

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

times relevant here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

gathering of evidence that might ripen into a potential prosecution.

presently unknown to the Plaintiff. Also:

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

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

prosecution of Conrad Truman.

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

knowingly and with reckless disregard for the truth.

entities as personal liability may become established or fully uncovered.

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

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

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

or investigative officer rather than an advocate.

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

knowingly and with reckless disregard for the truth.

or entities as liability may become established or fully uncovered.

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

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

GENERAL FACTS APPLICABLE TO ALL CLAIMS

at Utah Valley Regional Medical Center.

husband, Conrad Truman.

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

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

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

d. The clips of both guns were interchangeable;

question as to technical ownership;

table in its leather concealed carry holster;

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

ready to fire position.

b. Heidy was right-handed;

from front to back; almost a straight through path;

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