05.15 HIllary Federal Complaint W Exhibits

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
ORAL NICHOLAS HILLARY,
Plaintiff,
-against-
ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY, ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY DISTRICT

ATTORNEYS OFFICE, ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY DISTRICT COMPLAINT
ATTORNEY MARY E. RAIN, Individually and in her Official Capacity,
UNIDENTIFIED JANE/JOHN DOE #1-10 ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY
EMPLOYEES, UNIDENTIFIED JANE/JOHN DOE #11-20 ST. DOCKET NO.:
LAWRENCE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY EMPLOYEES, ST. 17-2952
LAWRENCE COUNTY SHERIFF KEVIN M. WELLS, Individually and in
his Official Capacity, ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFF
JOHN E. JONES, JR., Individually and in his Official Capacity,
UNIDENTIFIED JANE/JOHN DOE #21-30 ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY
SHERIFF EMPLOYEES,
VILLAGE OF POTSDAM, VILLAGE OF POTSDAM POLICE

DEPARTMENT, VILLAGE OF POTSDAM FORMER CHIEF OF
POLICE EDWARD TISCHLER, Individually and in his Official Capacity,
VILLAGE OF POTSDAM FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE KEVIN M.
BATES, VILLAGE OF POTSDAM FORMER POLICE LIEUTENANT
(presently Acting Chief of Police) MARK MURRAY, Individually and in
his Official Capacity, UNIDENTIFIED JANE/JOHN DOE VILLAGE OF JURY TRIAL
POTSDAM EMPLOYEES #31-40, DEMANDED
ONONDAGA COUNTY, ONONDAGA DISTRICT ATTORNEY

WILLIAM FITZPATRICK,
NEW YORK STATE POLICE, NEW YORK STATE POLICE OFFICER

GARY SNELL, Individually and in his Official Capacity, NEW YORK
STATE POLICE INVESTIGATOR THEODORE LEVINSON, NEW
YORK STATE POLICE INVESTIGATOR TIM PEETS, RAY
WICKENHEISER, individually and in his Official Capacity as Director,
Crime Lab System, New York State Police Forensic Investigation Center,
JULIE PIZZIKETTI, individually and in her Official Capacity as Director
of Biological Science, New York State Police Forensic Investigation Center,
UNIDENTIFIED JANE/JOHN DOE #41-50 NEW YORK STATE POLICE
EMPLOYEES,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
1
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff, complaining of the Defendants, by his attorneys, AMY MARION, ESQ.
and BRUCE BARKET, ESQ. respectfully shows to this Court and alleges that he was deprived
his civil rights and sustained injury as a result of the deprivations of his civil rights.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. On October 24, 2011, in the Village of Potsdam, New York, a twelve-year old
boy named Garrett Phillips was found dead.
2. Plaintiff, Mr. Hillary, had previously dated Garrett Phillips mother, Tandy Cyrus
(also known as Tandy Collins).
3. Two days after the boys death, Mr. Hillary was taken into police custody and
detained from approximately 8:00 a.m. until approximately 6:00 p.m. before being released; no
charges were brought against him at that time.
4. More than two and one half years later, on May 15, 2014, Mr. Hillary was
charged with the death of Garrett Phillips.
5. Two years after that, on September 28, 2016, Mr. Hillary was acquitted following
a bench trial.
6. This is a civil rights action seeking damages arising out of Defendants violation
of the rights secured by the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and arising under the laws and State of New York,
and arising out of Defendants defamatory statements.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, over claims arising
under 42 U.S.C. 1983.
2
8. Supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims exists pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 1367(a).
9. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b),
because that is the judicial district in which the Plaintiff resides.
JURY DEMAND
10. Pursuant to the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution, Plaintiff
requests a jury trial on all issues and claims set forth in this Complaint.
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
11. On December 21, 2016, Notices of Claim and a Notice of Intention were sent to
Defendants.
12. As a result of some of the Notices being returned as undelivered, Plaintiff filed
two separate motions for leave to file late notice of claim, one before the Supreme Court for the
County of St. Lawrence and one before the Supreme Court for the County of Onondaga.
13. The Supreme Court for St. Lawrence granted Plaintiffs application and the
motion before the Supreme Court for Onondaga County is still pending.
14. Plaintiff re-served the Notices of Claim pursuant to the St. Lawrence Courts
order and has also informed counsel for Onondaga County Defendants, St. Lawrence County
Defendants and Village of Potsdam Defendants that Plaintiff will submit to an examination after
a ruling is received from the Supreme Court for St. Lawrence County.
PARTIES
15. Plaintiff, Oral Nicholas Hillary is a resident of Kings County in the State of New
York.
3
16. The individually named St. Lawrence County Defendants were at all times
employed by the County of St. Lawrence and were acting in their capacity as St. Lawrence
County employees all times relevant and pertinent to Plaintiffs complaint.
17. At all times relevant to this complaint, St. Lawrence County District Attorney
Defendants were duly appointed and acting as District Attorneys and/or agents of the St.
Lawrence County District Attorney, acting under color of state law, within the scope of their
employment, pursuant to the statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs and usage of the
County of St. Lawrence and the State of New York.
18. Defendant County of St. Lawrence is a body politic and corporate empowered to
exercise home rule.
19. The County of St. Lawrence County Legislature, the Countys policymaker, has
delegated final policymaking authority for the supervision and control of the County of St.
Lawrence District Attorneys Office to the duly appointed District Attorney of the County of St.
Lawrence.
20. At all times relevant to this complaint, St. Lawrence County Sheriff Defendants
were duly appointed and acting as St. Lawrence County Sheriffs and/or agents of the St.
Lawrence County Sheriffs Department, acting under color of state law, within the scope of their
21. The County of St. Lawrence County Legislature, the Countys policymaker, has
delegated final policymaking authority for the supervision and control of the County of St.
Lawrence Sheriffs Department to the duly appointed Sheriff of the County of St. Lawrence.
4
22. The individually named Village of Potsdam Defendants were at all times
employed by the Village of Potsdam and were acting in their capacity as Village of Potsdam
employees all times relevant and pertinent to Plaintiffs complaint.
23. At all times relevant to this complaint, Village of Potsdam Police Department
Defendants were duly appointed and acting as Police Officers and/or agents of the Village of
Potsdam Police Department, acting under color of state law, within the scope of their
24. Defendant County of Village of Potsdam is a body politic and corporate
empowered to exercise home rule.
25. The Village of Potsdam Board of trustees, the Villages policymaker, has
delegated final policymaking authority for the supervision and control of the Village of Potsdam
to the duly appointed Board of trustees for the Village of Potsdam.
26. The individually named Onondaga County Defendants were at all times employed
by the County of Onondaga and were acting in their capacity as Onondaga County employees all
times relevant and pertinent to Plaintiffs complaint.
27. At all times relevant to this complaint, Onondaga District Attorney Defendants
were duly appointed and acting as District Attorneys and/or agents of the Onondaga County
District Attorney, acting under color of state law, within the scope of their employment, pursuant
to the statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs and usage of the County of Onondaga
and the State of New York.
28. Defendant County of Onondaga is a body politic and corporate empowered to
exercise home rule.
5
29. The County of Onondaga County Legislature, the Countys policymaker, has
delegated final policymaking authority for the supervision and control of the County of
Onondagas District Attorneys Office to the duly appointed District Attorney of the County of
Onondaga.
30. Defendant New York State Police is an executive agency of the State of New
York with an office located at 1220 Washington Avenue, Building 22, Albany, New York
12226-2252.
31. The individually named New York State Trooper/Officer/Investigator/Crime Lab
Defendants were at all times employed by the State of New York and were acting in their
capacity as New York State Police employees at all times relevant and pertinent to Plaintiffs
complaint.
32. At all times relevant to this complaint, New York State
Trooper/Officer/Investigator/Crime Lab Defendants were duly appointed and acting as New
York State Troopers/Officers/Investigators/Crime Lab Defendants and/or agents of New York
State Troopers/Officers/Investigators/Crime Lab Defendants, acting under color of state law,
within the scope of their employment, pursuant to the statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies,
customs and usage of the State of New York.
33. Defendant Ray Wickenheiser sued herein individually and in his official capacity
as Director Crime Lab System, New York State Police Forensic Investigation Center [New York
State Crime Lab], is a resident of the State of New York and at all times relevant herein was duly
employed and employee of the New York State Police.
34. Defendant Julie A. Pizziketti sued herein individually and in her official capacity
as Assistant Director/Director of Biological Sciences New York State Police Forensic
6
Investigation Center [New York State Crime Lab], is a resident of the State of New York and at
all times relevant herein was duly employed and employee of the New York State Police.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
35. On October 24, 2011 at 5:07 p.m. a call was received by the Potsdam Police
Department from a caller located in an apartment at 100 Market Street, stating that she had heard
a bang and someone say help or no in a neighboring apartment.
36. Garrett Phillips, along with his mother and brother, were living in an apartment
(apartment 4) at 100 Market Street in Potsdam, New York.
37. Police Officer (PO) Wentworth of the Potsdam Police Department responded to
the call.
38. With the assistance of the landlord, PO Wentworth entered the apartment where
he found Garret Phillips lying on the floor in a bedroom, not moving or breathing.
39. PO Wentworth called the dispatch and told them to send a squad and Officer
McCargar; he told the landlord, Rick Dumas, to start doing chest compressions, and he went
down to his car to get his emergency equipment.
40. Garrett Phillips was taken to the hospital, and two hours later he was pronounced
dead.
PLAINTIFF IS TARGETED
41. Two days after Garrett Phillips death, Mr. Hillary was taken into police custody,
strip searched, and held for ten hours.
42. Purportedly other individuals who had a relationship with the Garrett Phillips or
his mother voluntarily gave statements, were fingerprinted and gave DNA samples.
43. None of those individuals were held for ten hours or strip searched.
7
44. In October of 2011, Mr. Hilary was the mens soccer coach for Clarkson
University which is located in Potsdam, New York.
45. At the time, he had known Garrett Phillips for one year.
46. Mr. Hillary had met Garretts mother, Tandy Cyrus, in October of 2010; they had
become friends, dated, lived together for a brief period of time, and by September of 2011 they
were living apart.
47. Even though they were living apart, Mr. Hillary considered Ms. Cyrus a friend.
48. Mr. Hillary, who is of Jamaican decent, was immediately targeted as a suspect in
the death of Tandy Cyrus son.
49. Defendant John E. Jones, a Deputy Sheriff of St. Lawrence County, had also
dated Garrett Phillips mother.
50. Potsdam Police Department notes of video surveillance obtained from the scene
indicate that Defendant Jones pulled his truck into a driveway twenty-seven (27) seconds before
a kid (later identified as Garrett Phillips) was seen skateboarding down the road. See Exhibit A
51. Those same notes also indicate that four (4) minutes before the 911 call was
placed, Defendant Jones is seen walking on the street with his dog. Id.
52. Defendant Jones was not pursued as a suspect; instead, he actively participated in
targeting Nick Hillary.
53. Two days after the incident, Defendant Jones went to the police command where
the incident took place and gave the Sergeant a key to Tandy Cyrus apartment to compare w/
keys found during [the] search of Hillarys residence and office. See Exhibit B
54. A lead sheet from two days after the incident indicates that Jones is listed as the
source informing the police of a witness who remembers Nick Hillary getting a key made at his
8
store. See Exhibit C.
55. Additionally, the lead sheet from November 4, 2011, eleven days after the
incident, indicates that Defendant John Jones called Chief of Police Tischler and as a result of
that call, the Chief sent an officer to Nick Hillarys apartment to conduct an investigation. See
attached Exhibit D.
56. Defendant Jones was permitted to accompany and remain with Tandy Cyrus
while she was interviewed by Chief Tischler and Lieutenant Mark Murry; he obviously was not
considered a suspect. See Exhibit E.
CAUSE FOR RETALIATION
57. On January 20, 2012, Mr. Hillary filed a Notice of Claim as a result of the
deprivation of his rights on October 26, 2011.
58. A Summons and Complaint was filed in September of 2012 in the Supreme Court,
St. Lawrence County and was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of New York shortly thereafter.
59. The action was brought against the Village of Potsdam, the Chief of Police of the
Village and several individually named Village of Potsdam police officers.
60. The Village of Potsdam is located in St. Lawrence County, New York.
61. In March of 2013, six months after Mr. Hillary commenced his lawsuit, Mary E.
Rain, a former police officer for over 15 years, announced that she would be seeking election for
St. Lawrence County District Attorney; explaining that she was encouraged to do so by local
law enforcement officials and officers. 1
1
http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20130306/NEWS07/703059740
9
62. Presumably, the local local law enforcement officials and officers 2 who had
encouraged Mary Rain to run for office, were not pleased with sitting St. Lawrence County
District Attorney Nicole M. Duv who had not lodged any accusations against Mr. Hillary or
convened a grand jury.
63. Village of Potsdam Lt. Murray told Duv that Mr. Hillary was a high high
person of interest or potential suspect. See Exhibit F.
64. Ms. Duv was surly aware that there was no evidence that placed Mr. Hillary at
the crime scene, as testified to by former Village of Potsdam Chief of Police Edward F. Tischler.
See Exhibit G.
65. But that did not stop Mary Rain who commenced a vicious campaign against
Ms. Duv, claiming that her office had not been as cooperative with police agencies as it should
be; accusing her of incompetence, mismanagement, and the failure to investigate the Garrett
Phillips killing. 3
66. Rain pledged to solve the case and bring the killer to justice. Indeed, Rain in
many of her campaign events had Garretts mother at her side. Id.
67. Before ever entering the District Attorneys Office, Mary Rain was already
actively pursuing an arrest in Garrett Phillips case.
68. When she announced an indictment in the case within six months of winning her
election, she gave thanks to the fabulous job done by Potsdam PD and New York State
Police, 4 the local law enforcement who were being sued by Mr. Hillary and who had
encouraged her to run for the job. 5
2
3
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bennett-l-gershman/the-most-dangerous-prosec_b_12085240.html
4
See Exhibit H.
5
10
69. Mr. Hillary was charged with Garrett Phillips murder on the same day that
dispositive motions in his case against the Village of Potsdam were filed.
70. Ms. Rain posted, it was great to see Oral Nicholas Hillary in handcuffs. See
Exhibit H.
71. Unrelenting, Mr. Hillary remained in jail because the District Attorney questioned
the value of the properties offered for collateral for the bond, as well as the validity of the bond
company, even though according to Judge Richards office (sic), the bond company in question
has been used before in his courtroom. 6
THE CONSPIRACY
72. Potsdam Police Department Chief Ed Tischler, along with the assistance of
State Police forensic units who were collecting the evidence, the staff of the St. Lawrence
County District Attorneys Office, and the Sheriffs Department, pursued a course to target
Nick Hillary for Garrett Phillips murder. 7
73. Deputy Sheriff Jones steered the investigation by setting before them warrantless,
prejudicial and unlawful allegations which all of the Defendants promptly pursued.
74. The problem for them was that former District Attorney Duv would not sign off
on these baseless accusations which were not supported by a shred of evidence.
75. However, with Mary Rains successful win, they had a champion for their cause.
76. Ms. Rain did not care that nine months before Garrett Phillips death, his mother,
Tandy Cyrus, had made a complaint against Jones, stating that John has been acting in various
ways that causes me to fear for the safety of myself and my sons. See Exhibit I.
6
https://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/story/25400/20140711/after-two-months-hillary-bail-hearing-set-
to-resume
7
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2456925670173&id=103382899700373&refsrc=https%3A%2F%2F
m.facebook.com%2F1340WMSA%2Fvideos%2F2456925670173%2F&_rdr
11
77. Ms. Rain ignored this and told the press that John Jones had no issue, because he
was getting along fine with Tandy . . . . 8
78. Apparently, John Jones law suit against Tandy Cyrus, which was pending at the
time of Garrett Phillips death, was not an issue for Ms. Rain either. See Exhibit I; see also
Exhibit J.
79. True to her promise, and consistent with her vengeful campaign, Mary Rain swore
in an affidavit that Oral Nick Hillary was the last person seen with Garrett Phillips; that was an
outright lie. See Exhibit K.
80. Defendant Mark Murray testified under oath that video surveillance shows Mr.
Hillary stalking Garrett Phillips ten minutes before the murder; that was not true. See Exhibit
F, pg. 139.
81. Defendant Mark Murray gave this testimony at a deposition for Mr. Hillarys civil
suit filed against him, along with Chief Tischler and other officers, three months before Mr.
Hillary was arrested.
82. Defendant Murray claimed that the videotape of Mr. Hillary stalking Garrett,
you know literally 10 minutes before his death . . . seals it for [him]. Id.
83. When questioned for specifics about this claim, he was forced to admit that he did
not see Mr. Hillary in the video. Id. at pg. 145.
84. However, the video does show Defendant Jones pulling his truck into his
driveway within seconds of Garrett Phillips skateboarding by; and, it also shows Jones walking
on the street in the location of, and at the time of, the murder.
8
https://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/story/28539/20150605/why-is-justice-for-garrett-phillips-so-
complicated
12
85. The Defendants just simply ignore this, let alone characterize it as stalking or
other incriminating behavior. Defendant Jones presence within seconds of Garrett Phillips
presence at the same location and, his presence on the street at the time of the murder, didnt seal
the deal for Defendant Murray.
86. But, Mr. Hillarys car in a parking lot, ten minutes before the murder, did.
87. Ms. Rain did her part by poisoning the public as well, announcing that Mr. Hillary
was a habitual marijuana smoker and that he had been arrested for having a pound or more of
marijuana in 2000 that was reduced to a misdemeanor without there ever having been a hearing
as to the admissibility of these charges or the underlying bad acts. 9
88. She threatened one of Mr. Hillarys alibi witnesses with obstruction and the other
with a grand jury subpoena, forcing the witness to reveal privileged attorney-client
communications.
89. The police told Mr. Fairlie, one of the alibi witnesses, that the District Attorney
was listening and watching their conversation; telling him that she was looking into obstruction
of charges (sic) that they thought [the witness] was withholding something or lying about
something or knew information that the [witness] didnt [know]. See Exhibit L. Fairlie.
90. Defendant Peets yelled at this witness, telling him that they knew Nick did it
and that he didnt have to stand up for him, telling him that Nick didnt do anything for him
and he doesnt have to do anything for Nick. Id.
9
13
91. Defendant Murray and Defendant Snell went to this witness home, several times
unannounced, and told this witness that if he changed his alibi statement given on October 26,
2011 he wouldnt get in trouble. 10 See Exhibit L.
92. As for Mr. Hillarys other alibi witness, his daughter Shanna, her grand jury
testimony covered 80 pages. See Exhibit M.
93. Ms. Rain was admonished by the Court for her conduct when examining this
witness.
94. The Judge explained that [t]he problems arose when the prosecutor asked
Shanna about her conversation with her lawyer, within a week after Garrett died. In the grand
jury preceding it was unquestionably improper and prejudicial for Ms. Rain to ask her what her
lawyer had told her, and then to press her, in cross-examining fashion, telling Shanna that she
had to answer because she was under subpoena. Id.
95. When this questioning persisted, Shanna disclosed that the attorney with whom
she spoke was the same attorney who had represented Defendant in his civil claim against the
police officers. Id.
96. [W]ith this line of questions, Ms. Rain was trying both to undermine a potential
alibi defense and at the same time portray witnesses who could provide a potential alibi defense
as lying to protect Defendant. Id.
97. The prosecutors expression of bias by her disbelief of the witness testimony for
all intents and purposes took out of the jurys hands a determination of what the proved facts
were in that regard. Id.
10
https://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/story/28539/20150605/why-is-justice-for-garrett-phillips-so-
complicated
14
98. Worst of all, Ms. Rain asked Shanna essentially the same question thirteen times
as to how she could explain the unrefuted proof that established that Defendant was not in
Shannas home at or around (a specific time changed with each question) on the day of the
homicide. This testimony was bullying a seventeen-year old girl, who clearly stated that she did
not understand what Ms. Rain meant by unrefuted proof. Id.
99. Ms. Rain did not explain what she meant by that, and moreover, it was extremely
prejudicial to use words like unrefuted proof in the grand jury while questioning a witness.
These questions invaded the fact-finding role of the grand jurors, and told them what Ms. Rain
thought that the proof showed. Id.
100. The question was so improper that it could not have been asked at trial . . . The
prosecutors question clearly stated to the grand jury what her belief was regarding the fact at
issue and was an improper attempt to influence the grand jurors. Id.
101. Judge Richards stated that the prosecutor seemed to put aside any neutrality and
balanced judgment duties imposed on her by case law in questioning two witnesses who were
later identified as potential alibi witnesses. Any indictment returned on such facts as were
presented to the grand jury must be the product of unquestioned fairness, precisely because the
meaning of the events described is not conclusive proof of guilt. Here, that was not the case.
Id.
102. Judge Richards ruling regarding the eye-witness or forensic evidence was that:
There was a great deal of testimony about video surveillance

cameras showing either Garrett Phillips or Oral Hillary at different
locations, some of them fairly near Garrett's residence, at times
within several hours to within minutes before or after the probable
time of the crime. Many of the foundation questions for
introducing the videos into evidence lacked an adequate
foundation. For example, repeatedly the prosecutors asked a
foundation witness whether the things shown in the videos
15
accurately showed the scene as it looked on the particular date and
time. No factual basis was provided for the 'yes' response provided
by many of these witnesses.
See Exhibit M.
103. Judge Richards found that Ms. Rains questioning of Tandy Cyrus clearly
suggested that the prosecutor wanted to portray Defendant either as uncaring or as having a
motive to avoid contact with Garretts surviving family. Id. Finding that [t]he question was
improper and highly prejudicial. Id.
104. On October 16, 2014, the Honorable Jerome J. Richards dismissed the indictment
based upon prosecutorial misconduct in the grand jury. Id.
105. On that day, Mary Rain complained to the press that she was deeply troubled by
the judges decision . . . . 11
106. At that time, in October of 2014, Mary Rain stated that she was deciding whether
or not to appeal the courts dismissal of the indictment or to reconvene a new grand jury. Id.
107. However, on November 17, 2014, [t]he process to re-indict started over. See
Exhibit N.
108. By January 21, 2015, the case had been presented to a different grand jury which
returned an indictment charging Mr. Hillary once again with the murder of Garrett Phillips. 12
109. Persistent in her vengeful crusade, in September of 2015, Ms. Rain charged Mr.
Hillary with second-degree criminal contempt for purportedly violating an order of protection
which had been issued in favor of Tandy Cyrus; and, at the same time sought to have Mr.
11
http://northcountrynow.com/news/da-deeply-troubled-dismissal-murder-indictment-against-potsdam-man-isnt-
giving-case-0127254
12
http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/news05/hillary-statement-about-ankle-suppressed-earlier-interview-by-
police-is-admissible-20150926
16
Hillarys defense attorney removed from the case and sanctioned for the bail posted as a result of
this new charge 13.
110. Mary Rain charged Mr. Hillary with criminal contempt based upon Mr. Hillarys
visit to his local bank, the Potsdam branch of SeaComm Bank. Id.
111. Tandy Cyrus worked at SeaComm and the order of protection stated that Mr.
Hillary should stay away from Ms. Cyrus place of business; however, Tandy Cyrus did not
work at the Potsdam branch when the order of protection was issued, she worked at a different
branch many miles from Potsdam. Id.
112. The Court, recognizing these known facts, stated that Mr. Hillary has a right to
know if Ms. Cyrus changes her work location and, that it is reasonable to assume [that Mr.
Hillarys appearance at his bank in Potsdam] was a mistake. Id.
113. Once again, Ms. Rain publicly disagreed with the Courts ruling, complaining that
it was disingenuous to say that Mr. Hillary did not know that Ms. Cyrus had relocated to the
Potsdam branch. Id.
114. Ms. Rains statement however, is a clear admission that Ms. Cyrus was not
working at the Potsdam branch and, more importantly, that she had not been working at the
address which was listed in the order of protection. Id.
115. Nevertheless, Ms. Rain persisted in maliciously charging Mr. Hillary with
criminal contempt in the second degree, a charge which is still pending to this day.
13
http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/news05/hillary-statement-about-ankle-suppressed-earlier-interview-by-
police-is-admissible-20150926
17
FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE
116. Within four days of obtaining the first indictment which was dismissed, Mary
Rain made an application to employ District Attorney Fitzpatrick, citing the low-copy DNA,
video surveillance, and dozens of witness interviews and statements. See Exhibit K.
117. On October 25, 2011, the day after Garrett Phillips death, Potsdam Chief of
Police Tischler had indicated that it was the State Police forensic units who assisted the
Village of Potsdam Defendants in collecting and analyzing the evidence. 14
118. The DNA analysis was crucial to this case - there was no evidence linking Nick
Hillary to this crime scene.
119. Emphasizing the importance of this, Village of Potsdam Police Lt. Mark Murray
stated three months before Nick Hillary was charged, that [t]he DNA reports, if you really read
into them, for instance, the DNA profile, its neither inclusive nor exclusive . . . so you know
theres potential that maybe down the road theres better DNA processes that would be able to,
you know, definitely exclude him or include him. See Exhibit F.
120. [I]f hes included or excluded, I just want him to be either cleared if he didnt do
this or charged if he did do this. Id.
121. Upon information and belief, before District Attorney Fitzpatrick was even
employed on the case, both he and Mary Rain were aware that there was no statistical support
for a match between the fingernail scrapings from the left hand of the victim Garrett Phillips
(item 550C2) and suspect Oral Hillary (Items 21, 22 and 24). 15
14
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2456925670173&id=103382899700373&refsrc=https%3A%2F%2F
m.facebook.com%2F1340WMSA%2Fvideos%2F2456925670173%2F&_rdr
15
https://www.cybgen.com/information/newsroom/2016/dec/Cybergenetics-responds-to-letter-from-Hillary-
prosecutor.shtml
18
122. And, Defendant Murrays statement reflects that he knew this as well. But he,
like all of the Defendants herein, was not satisfied with that answer. They were going to make
sure that they got a definite answer, whatever the cost.
123. At that time, the New York State Crime Lab used the Combined Probability of
Inclusion (CPI) to statistically evaluate DNA mixtures. See Shannon Morris, et al. v. New York
State Police, et al., 16-CV-00164 (DNH/DJS) (N.D.N.Y. 2016), D.E. 1.
124. The CPI statistical method requires forensic scientists to subjectively analyze
DNA results. Id.
125. The subjectivity required in the CPI method in a mixed source DNA has been
criticized for being inexact thereby resulting in inculpatory and exculpatory inaccuracy. Id.
126. The Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods (SWGDSAM)
approved Autosomal STR Typing by Forensic DNA Testing Laboratories in 2010 which resulted
in the introduction of the stochastic threshold in the analyzing of DNA data. Id.
127. The interpretation guidelines for implementation of the stochastic threshold with
the CPI method results in mixed DNA profiles that are inconclusive. Id.
128. Inconclusive results in a case necessarily results in the inability to use DNA data
to enter and search profiles in the Combined DNA Index System. Id.
129. Inconclusive results in a case necessarily results in the inability to identify a
suspect. Id.
130. The use of the CPI method in the Crime Lab resulted in a debate within the
Crime Lab as to whether a match statistic could be arrived at from certain mixed sources of
DNA. Id.
131. If a match statistic could not be obtained the report was inconclusive. Id.
19
132. If a match statistic could be obtained, the result would be reported to prosecutors
in a DNA report. Id.
133. When analyzing DNA data using the CPI method all conclusions about a profile
are supposed to be made without a reference sample, meaning the analysts should not be suspect-
centric by using a reference profile to interpret DNA. Id.
134. The State of New York entered into a contract with Cybergenetics 16 to train its
forensic scientist in the TrueAllele software. Id.
135. TrueAllele, created by Cybergenetics, is a computerized DNA interpretation
system that infers genetic profiles from DNA samples. Id.
136. TrueAllele involved a completely different method of analyzing DNA
evidence; it varied from the methods previously used by [Defendant Pizziketti, Defendant
Wickenheiser] and the other forensic scientists in the Crime Lab. Id.
137. TrueAllele removes the subjective component from the analysis of DNA
evidence. Id.
138. TrueAllele does not use a stochastic threshold and this results in less
inconclusive results than the CPI method. Id.
139. Between 2001 and 2014, New York State was committed to replacing the CPI
method with TrueAllele. Id.
140. Despite this commitment, there were certain elements in New York State Police,
including but not limited to Defendant Pizziketti, Defendant Wickenheiser . . . and John Doe[s] .
. . that were attempting to undermine the implementation of TrueAllele. Id.
16
https://www.cybgen.com/
20
141. It was expected that DNA evidence previously analyzed using the CPI method
would be reanalyzed using the TrueAllele software. Id.
142. It was further expected that the TrueAllele software would show that in a large
percentage of cases in which the DNA was obtained from a mixed source, the statistic obtained
using the CPI method was not accurate. Id.
143. In a small percentage of these cases, TrueAllele would show that the DNA
evidence used in a criminal conviction was actually exculpatory rather than inculpatory. Id.
144. Upon information and belief, Defendant John Doe [#41] was aware that
TrueAllele would reveal that the prosecutors used inaccurate DNA evidence results to prosecute
a criminal case. Id.
145. Upon information and belief, Defendant John Doe [#41] opposed the
implementation of TrueAllele in the Crime Lab because he did not want previous criminal
convictions questioned. Id.
146. Defendant Pizziketti opposed the implementation of TrueAllele in the Crime
Lab. Id.
147. Defendant Pizzikettis opposition to Trueallele was due to the fact that
TrueAllele would diminish the workforce and the result in re-analyzing cases thereby disclosing
improper activity on her part. Id.
148. Beginning in 2012 through December of 2015, the Associate Director of
Biological Sciences for the New York State Forensic Investigation Center openly criticized
Defendant Julie Pizziketti for allowing scientists to provide questionable DNA statistics in
criminal cases and for allowing staff members to perform questionable casework examinations.
Id.
21
149. Defendant Julie Pizziketti allowed scientists to testify to questionable DNA
results. Id.
150. It is alleged that Defendant Julie Pizziketti herself was testifying in criminal cases
in which she was neither competent nor proficient to testify. Id.
151. Cybergenetics claims that in 2011 and in 2014 it informed Mr. Fitzpatrick that the
methodology of combined probability of inclusion (CPI) match statistic for DNA mixtures is
not accepted as valid science 17 [and that all of the] DNA convictions that used CPI are at risk,
either because of unreported potentially exculpatory inconclusive results, or inaccurate
inculpatory match statistics used at trial. Id.
WITHHOLDING OF EXCULPATORY MATERIAL
152. On January 25, 2016, during a conference with the Court, District Attorney
Fitzpatrick informed the Court that he did not know whether or not the State Police used
TrueAllele. See Transcript January 25, 2016.
153. The Judge informed Mr. Fitzpatrick that if TrueAllele was asked to do any work
on this sample . . . I agree with defense counsel, youre obligated to turn it over, regardless of
what it is, and let them do with it as they feel its appropriate. Id. at pg. 20.
154. The Judge continued by stating that if it turns out that this has never been
referred to TrueAllele . . . the books closed. Id at pg. 21.
155. Cybergenetics had helped Mr. Fitzpatrick in the past and had testified in his
County about these issues 18.
17
prosecutor.shtml
18
prosecutor.shtml
22
156. Cybergenetics had offered to review all of Mr. Fitzpatricks past DNA mixture
cases, explaining that its motivation in Mr. Hillarys case was,
to help prevent a grave scientific injustice. The company worked

pro bono on the case, conducting a quarter of a million dollars
worth of service without pay. Our scientists examined the data
from all hundred and fifty items of DNA evidence, not just one
fingernail item.
Over a three-year period, Cybergenetics assisted the police,

prosecution and defense in understanding the DNA evidence.
TrueAllele doesnt take sides. Our Hillary involvement did not help
business. The company generally breaks even, investing heavily in
science and pro bono justice. 19
157. Four months before Mr. Fitzpatrick had informed the Court that he didnt know if
TrueAllele interpretation had been done by the State, he had received a copy of a report which
Cybergenetics had performed for the State in Mr. Hillarys case. See Exhibit Q (email attached
thereto indicating that in September of 2015 Mr. Fitzpatrick received an email with a copy of
report which had been sent to the State).
158. Defendant Julie Pizziketti and Defendant Wickenheiser surly knew that
TrueAllele had been used as New York State was committed to replacing the CPI method with
TrueAllele from early on as 2001 20.
159. Furthermore, in an email correspondence dated November 3, 2015, three months
before Mr. Fitzpatrick made these statements to the Court, he was informed that he had been told
by TrueAllele on September 10, 2015, via email, that they advised retesting and, he was
informed that the State lab was also informed of this via an email correspondence. Id.
19
prosecutor.shtml
20
See Shannon Morris, et al. v. New York State Police, et al., 16-CV-00164 (DNH/DJS) (N.D.N.Y. 2016), D.E. 1.
23
160. The report which was sent to the State by Cybergenetics and which had been
forwarded to Mr. Fitzpatrick found no statistical support for a match between the fingernail
scrapings from the left hand of the victim Garrett Phillips (item 550C2) and suspect Oral Hillary
(Items 21, 22 and 24). Id.
161. Yet, on January 25, 2016, Mr. Fitzpatrick informed the Court that he would check
with Defendant Julie Pizziketti and if theres some communication, some report, some
inconclusive thing, he would get it to the defense. Id. at pg. 18.
162. Two months after this conference, in April of 2016, Judge Richards recused
himself from all criminal cases involving District Attorney Rain after filing a complaint against
her with the Committee on Professional Standards. 21
163. And, on April 18, 2016, the St. Lawrence County Board of Legislators voted no
confidence in District Attorney Rain citing lapses in judgement and unethical behavior. 22
164. In August of 2016, the defense motions to preclude the DNA analysis were
granted by the Honorable Felix J. Catena, County Court Judge for Montgomery County who was
assigned to the case after Judge Richards recusal.
165. The decision precluded the prosecution from calling a witness to testify regarding
conclusions reached by the interpretation methodology employed (ultimately STRmix) based
upon the prosecutions failure to lay a foundation for the introduction of evidence that had not
been internally validated. See Exhibit O.
21
http://northcountrynow.com/news/st-lawrence-county-judge-recuses-self-current-cases-after-filing-complaint-
against-da-0168962
22
http://www.twcnews.com/nys/watertown/news/2016/04/18/-no-confidence--vote-against-da-rain-could-mean-
state-investigation.html; http://www.twcnews.com/nys/watertown/news/2016/12/6/st-lawrence-county-no-
confidence-district-attorney-mary-rain.html.
24
166. The Court also precluded the prosecution from offering expert testimony as to any
statistical results obtained by using the random match probability on the composite minor
component of mixture. Id.
167. Mr. Hillarys case was tried before Judge Catena, who on September 28, 2016,
acquitted him of the single count in the indictment, murder in the second degree.
168. Unrelenting, even after the verdict was handed down, District Attorney
Fitzpatrick wrote that a demonstrably guilty Defendant went free and, it is my everlasting
regret that I was unable to convince a Judge (Catena) about the value of this DNA evidence and
as a result, a sociopathic killer of a helpless 12 year old boy now walks among us. See Exhibit
P.
169. Two months after the verdict, the County legislators voted on a resolution asking
Mary Rain to resign.
DAMAGES
170. The unlawful, intentional, willful, deliberately indifferent, reckless, and/or bad-
faith acts and omissions of the Defendants caused Plaintiff to be wrongly seized, falsely
arrested, incarcerated, and maliciously prosecuted.
171. The unlawful, intentional, willful, deliberately indifferent, reckless, negligent,
and/or bad-faith acts and omissions of the Defendants caused Plaintiff the following injuries
and damages, which were foreseeable to the Defendants at the time of their acts and omissions,
and which continue to date into the future: physical pain and suffering, mental anguish,
emotional distress, damage to reputation, loss of liberty, loss of employment, loss of personal
associations and the benefits of liberty, humiliation, harassment, scorn, loss of professional
opportunity, loss of income, legal expenses, indignities, embarrassment, and degradation for
25
which he is entitled to monetary relief.
172. All the alleged acts, misdeeds and omissions committed by the individual
Defendants described herein for which liability is claimed were done negligently, intentionally,
willfully, purposefully, knowingly, unlawfully, maliciously, wantonly, recklessly, and/or with
bad faith, and said proscribed conduct of the individual Defendants meets all of the standards for
imposition of punitive damages.
173. Damages are in the amount to be determined at trial but are in excess of One
Hundred and Fifty Thousand ($150,000.00) Dollars exclusive of interest and costs.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
42 U.S.C. 1983 FALSE ARREST
174. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all of the foregoing paragraphs and
further alleges as follows.
175. Defendants acted under color of law and deprived Plaintiff his civil, constitutional
and statutory rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, specifically, plaintiff's right
to be free from false arrest and imprisonment, when they detained and imprisoned plaintiff
without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, and are liable to plaintiff under 42 U.S.C.
1983.
176. Plaintiff was aware of his confinement and did not consent to it and it was not
otherwise privileged.
177. That the said acts, were caused by the Defendants and unidentified Defendants
without any legal justification.
178. Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of Defendants wrongful acts.
26
179. That by reason of the aforesaid, the Plaintiff has each been damaged in a sum to
be determined by a jury and an award of attorneys fees is appropriate pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
1988.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
42 U.S.C. 1983 - MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
180. All other paragraphs in this complaint are here incorporated by reference.
181. That the Plaintiffs rights have been violated pursuant to the United States
Constitution.
183. That the said malicious and continuing prosecutions were instigated by the
Defendants, their agents, servants and employees, without any legal justification to wit, without
probable cause and based upon the Defendants knowingly false statement that Plaintiff
committed the crime of murder in the second degree.
184. Defendants false statements and false information caused the initiation of
criminal proceedings against the Plaintiff.
185. That Defendants fabrication of evidence caused the initiation of criminal
proceedings against the Plaintiff.
186. That the Defendants continued fabrication of evidence and post-arrest
falsification of evidence caused the continued prosecution against Plaintiff.
187. Plaintiff was arraigned on criminal charges and criminal prosecutions continued
against him.
27
188. That the said initiation and continuation of criminal proceedings was instigated
and caused by the Defendants and by Defendants providing false information, without authority
of the law and without any legal basis or probable cause to believe that Plaintiff was in fact
guilty of crimes.
189. There was no information sufficient to support a reasonable belief that Plaintiff
committed the murder of Garrett Phillips.
190. The Defendants acts were shocking and were performed by the Defendants with
deliberate and reckless disregard for the truth and with malice.
191. In fact, the charge against Plaintiff was dismissed.
192. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants actions, Mr. Hillary suffered loss
of liberty and was imprisoned.
193. That by reason of this malicious prosecution, Plaintiff incurred physical,
emotional and pecuniary harms, suffered humiliation, mental anguish, embarrassment, loss of
employment and he was otherwise injured.
1988.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
42 U.S.C. 1983-CONSPIRACY
196. Defendants, all state actors, acted in concert to inflict the unconstitutional injuries
upon Plaintiff; and, they performed overt acts in furtherance of that goal causing the damages set
forth herein.
28
197. Mary Rain agreed to run for District Attorney at the behest of and encouragement
of local law enforcement officers who she promptly thanked once she was elected.
198. The local law enforcement officers, Village of Potsdam and New York State
Defendants, along with the St. Lawrence Sheriff Defendants, were set in their determination to
target, arrest and prosecute Mr. Hillary.
199. They backed Ms. Rain to run for District Attorney and she agreed and ran her
campaign based upon the promise to bring about an arrest in Garrett Phillips death.
200. She did so within six months of her election.
201. The New York State Defendants encouraged Ms. Rain as they were also
supporting someone who would become their ally in their quest to prevent TrueAllele from
exposing their incompetence.
202. Ms. Rain was just that person, with Garretts mother at her side campaigning, she
was determined to see this through regardless of the fact that there was no physical evidence of
Mr. Hillary at the scene and the DNA analysis showed that there was no statistical support for a
match between fingernail scrapings from Garrett Phillips and Mr. Hillary.
203. Ms. Rain recruited Mr. Fitzpatrick, who, upon information and belief, had already
seen the State Lab results before he was ever brought on the case and before there was ever an
indictment.
204. Ms. Rain, along with the State Defendants, the Village of Potsdam Defendants,
and the St. Lawrence Defendants all worked together, with the same goal and the same blind
malice, to bring about an indictment.
29
205. Ms. Rain, along with the State Defendants, the Village of Potsdam Defendants,
the Onondaga Defendant, and the St. Lawrence Defendants all worked together with the same
goal and the same blind malice, to prosecute Mr. Hillary.
206. The Defendants conspired among themselves for the purpose of depriving
Plaintiff, either directly or indirectly, of equal protection of the laws, or equal privileges and
immunities under the law, including the privilege to be free from false arrest and unjust and
malicious prosecution.
207. Defendants performed acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.
208. Defendants acts injured Plaintiff in his person or property and deprived him of a
right or privilege of a citizen of the United States.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
42 U.S.C. 1983 FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE CLAIM
Constitution.
212. That the deprivation of Plaintiffs liberty was caused by the Defendants
fabrication of evidence.
213. That the Defendants post-arrest fabrication and/or falsification of evidence
caused the deprivation of Plaintiffs liberty.
30
214. That by reason of the fabrication and/or falsification of evidence, Plaintiff
incurred physical, emotional and pecuniary harms, suffered humiliation, mental anguish,
embarrassment, loss of employment and he was otherwise injured.
1988.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
42 U.S.C. 1983 FAILURE TO DISCLOSE EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE
Constitution.
219. That the deprivation of Plaintiffs liberty was caused by the Defendants
withholding of and/or failure to disclose exculpatory evidence.
220. That by reason of the withholding of and/or failure to disclose exculpatory
evidence Plaintiff incurred physical, emotional and pecuniary harms, suffered humiliation,
mental anguish, embarrassment, loss of employment and he was otherwise injured.
1988.
31
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
42 U.S.C. 1983 FOR VIOLATIONS OF PLAINTIFFS FOURTEENTH

AMENDMENT EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS
223. The policies of the municipal Defendants and the New York State Police
Defendants have violated Plaintiffs constitutional right to have police and law enforcement
services administered in a nondiscriminatory manner. The unequal treatment Plaintiff received
from the State of New York Police, the Village of Potsdam, the County of St. Lawrence and/or
the County of Onondaga was based upon the fact that he was a Black individual of Jamaican
decent as opposed to the more favorable treatment accorded similarly situated Caucasian
individuals.
224. The municipalities unwritten but long standing policies selectively denied its
constitutional guarantees to certain disfavored minorities like Plaintiff.
225. Plaintiff was treated differently from other similarly situated individuals, based on
impermissible considerations such as race, and Defendants actions or inactions were at least in
part because of, not merely in spite of, their adverse effects upon by Plaintiff by reason of
illegitimate consideration of Plaintiffs race.
226. The State of New York Police, the Village of Potsdam, the County of St.
Lawrence and/or the County of Onondaga have been deliberately indifferent to the constitutional
rights of individuals who come into contact with its employees and/or agents, as these
municipalities have had a policy permitting its employees and/or agents to arrest and prosecute
individuals without any legal justification.
32
1988.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
42 U.S.C. 1983 RETALIATORY PROSECUTION CLAIM FOR VIOLATIONS OF

PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT OF FREE EXPRESSION
228. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in
the prior paragraphs with the same force and effect as if more fully and at length set forth herein.
229. Plaintiffs rights in initiating a law suit against the Village of Potsdam Defendants
for a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights on October 26, 2011 was conduct which is
constitutionally protected.
230. Plaintiffs initiation of this law suit was a substantial factor and/or motivating
factor in the Defendants prosecution of Plaintiff.
231. There was no probable cause for Plaintiffs prosecution.
232. Plaintiff would not have been prosecuted in the absence of the retaliatory motive
of Defendants.
1988.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
42 U.S.C. 1983 - DUE PROCESS AND STIGMA-PLUS DEFAMATION
33
235. Defendants published Plaintiffs name and made false claims, referring to him as
a sociopathic killer and as the murderer of Garrett Phillips.
236. These statements are false.
237. As a result of these statements, Plaintiff was unable to rent housings, Plaintiff was
told to vacate his apartment, he has suffered public humiliation, damage to his reputation, loss of
employment, loss of personal associations and loss of the benefits of liberty.
238. The publishing of Plaintiffs name and reference to him as a sociopathic killer
and/or Garrett Phillips murderer was maintained or disseminated in a fashion that resulted in the
above stated losses.
239. By reason of the aforesaid, the Plaintiff was defamed, suffered stigmatizing-plus
injuries related to public humiliation, damage to his reputation, loss of employment, loss of
personal associations and loss of the benefits of liberty, and as a result, his rights to due process
were thereby violated.
1988.
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
42 U.S.C. 1983- MUNICIPAL AND CORPORATE LIABILITY FOR THE

VIOLATIONS OF PLAINTIFFS FIRST, FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT RIGHTS
242. The State of New York, the Village of Potsdam, the County of St. Lawrence
and/or the County of Onondaga through its respective high level policy makers, has made a
deliberate, conscious choice to allow its employees to engage in law enforcement activities,
34
without the training in the proper predicates for law enforcement, probable cause, reasonable
cause, gathering of evidence, analyzing of evidence, proper procedures, and constitutional
mandates.
243. The State of New York, the Village of Potsdam, the County of St. Lawrence and
the County of Onondaga are liable for the damages suffered by Plaintiff because each of these
municipalities has created policies and customs under which unconstitutional practices regularly
occur and even thrive.
244. The practices described in this Complaint comprise both formal policies, and
practices so consistent and widespread that, although not expressly authorized, constitute a
custom or usage of which supervising policy-makers must have been aware, and policymakers
failed to provide adequate training or supervision to subordinates to such an extent that it
amounted to deliberate indifference to the rights of those who come into contact with employees
and/or agents of the State of New York, the Village of Potsdam, the County of St. Lawrence
and/or the County of Onondaga.
245. Many of the Defendants are themselves policy-makers and thus their conduct and
unconstitutional acts and omissions constituted the policy and practice of their respective
municipalities.
246. The deliberate indifference on the part of the State of New York, the Village of
Potsdam, the County of St. Lawrence and/or the County of Onondaga caused Plaintiffs injuries.
247. The State of New York, the Village of Potsdam, the County of St. Lawrence
and/or the County of Onondaga have failed to train its member in legal justifications for citizens
arrests.
35
248. By reason of the aforesaid, the Plaintiff was defamed, suffered stigmatizing-plus
injuries related to public humiliation, damage to his reputation, loss of employment, loss of
personal associations and loss of the benefits of liberty, and as a result, his rights to due process
were thereby violated.
1988.
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
42 U.S.C. 1983 - SUPERVISOR LIABILITY

IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST, FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS
251. That the Plaintiffs rights have been violated under the First, Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by the Defendants and John Doe
Defendants who were supervisors of the Defendants.
252. That these Defendants, who were supervisors had actual and constructive
knowledge of the illegal seizure, false arrest, malicious prosecution and abuse of process which
was being committed by their subordinates against the Plaintiff.
253. That the Defendant supervisors did cause the Plaintiffs harms by failing to
remedy the patterns of false arrest, malicious prosecution and abuse of process and other
constitutional violations the Defendants committed after learning of them, by creating a policy
and custom under which unconstitutional practices occurred and were tolerated and, by being
grossly negligent in managing their subordinates.
36
254. That by reason of the unlawful seizure and detention, Plaintiff incurred mental
anguish, emotional distress, physical pain and injury, loss of professional opportunity, loss of
income, legal expenses, loss of reputation, humiliation, indignities, embarrassment, and
degradation and he was otherwise injured.
255. That by reason of the aforesaid, the Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be
determined by a jury and an award of attorneys fees is appropriate pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988.
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
NEW YORK STATE TORT LAW NEGLIGENT HIRING, TRAINING, SUPERVISION

AND RETENTION
257. That the Defendants were negligent, careless, reckless and deliberately indifferent
in hiring, retaining, properly training and supervising, as and for its employees, named and
unidentified Defendants herein, in that the Defendants knew or should have known that the
individually named and unnamed employees lacked the skill, ability and training to act
appropriately in investigations and criminal prosecutions.
258. The Defendants failed to exercise due care and caution in their hiring practices,
and in particular, in hiring the Defendant employees who lacked the maturity, mental capacity
and the ability to function as employees of the aforementioned Defendants and were wholly
unqualified in that the named and unidentified Defendants lacked the training, knowledge, and
expertise to be employed when hired to be employees.
259. The Defendants failed to establish proper guidelines and procedures for screening
and investigating law enforcement officials.
37
260. That the Defendants failed to train its employees in the proper criteria for
establishing probable cause to arrest; the proper criteria for establishing reasonable suspicion to
believe that a certain individual committed a criminal act, the proper criteria for conducting a
criminal investigation, the legal competence to uphold the constitution and properly prosecute a
case; and that the Defendants, their agents, servants and employees were otherwise reckless,
careless, deliberately indifferent and negligent.
261. The aforesaid occurrence and resulting injuries to mind and body therefrom, were
caused wholly and solely by reason of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of the
Defendants, their agents, servants and employees without any negligence on the part of the
Plaintiff.
262. The aforesaid injuries were the result of the negligence, recklessness and
carelessness of the Defendants.
263. The aforesaid injuries did not result from any negligence or fault on the part of the
Plaintiff herein.
264. The limitations on liability set forth in CPLR 1601 do not apply by reason of
one or more of the exemptions set forth in CPLR 1602.
265. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged as set forth above.
TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
NEW YORK STATE TORT FALSE IMPRISONMENT/FALSE ARREST
266. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all of the foregoing paragraphs and
further alleges as follows.
38
267. That the Plaintiffs right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure has been
violated pursuant to Article I Section 12 of the New York New York State Constitution in that
the Defendants instigated and caused the arrest of the Plaintiff.
268. There was no information sufficient to support a reasonable belief that Plaintiff
committed the murder of Garrett Phillips.
269. That the said false arrest was instigated and caused by the Defendants, their
agents, servants and employees, without any legal justification to wit, without probable cause
and by providing knowingly false information which resulted in the Plaintiffs confinement
based upon the Defendants insistence that Plaintiff had committed the murder.
270. That the Plaintiff was conscious of the confinement, Plaintiff did not consent to
the confinement and the confinement was not otherwise privileged.
271. That by reason of the unlawful seizure and false arrest, Plaintiff has been
damaged as set forth above.
THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
NEW YORK STATE TORT ABUSE OF PROCESS
273. The Defendants and/or John Doe Defendants issued legal process to place
Plaintiff under arrest.
274. That the policy and custom among Defendants was at the time of Plaintiffs arrest
to make an immediate arrest regardless of whether reasonable or probable cause existed for the
arrest.
39
275. That there was absolutely no reasonable or probable cause for Plaintiffs arrest,
Plaintiff committed no crime, Plaintiff did not engage in any criminal activity, nor was there any
legitimate basis to believe that Plaintiff had engaged in any criminal conduct.
276. Defendants aimed to achieve a collateral purpose beyond criminal prosecution,
such purpose being the furtherance of the unconstitutional policy and/or custom of making an
immediate arrest regardless of whether reasonable or probable cause existed for the arrest.
277. Probable cause for Plaintiffs arrest was lacking, and thus malice or any improper
or wrongful motive may be inferred from the lack of probable cause. Defendants might have
acted in the honest and reasonable belief that Plaintiff was guilty of some crime, but their good
faith does not exonerate them as the facts themselves and as presented to them did not constitute
any criminal conduct.
278. That the Defendants acts intended to cause harm to the Plaintiff and did cause
harm to Plaintiff without excuse or justification.
279. That Defendants aforementioned actions were conscience shocking and placed
Plaintiff in apprehension of emotional injuries.
280. That by reason of the abuse of process, the Plaintiff incurred mental anguish,
emotional distress, physical pain, loss of professional opportunity, loss of income, legal
expenses, loss of reputation, humiliation, indignities, embarrassment, and degradation and he
was otherwise injured.
40
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays as follows:
A. That the Court award compensatory damages to him and against the Defendants
jointly and severally, in an amount to be determined at trial;
B. That the Court award punitive damages to Plaintiff, and against all non-municipal
Defendants, in an amount, to be determined at trial, that will deter such conduct by Defendants in
the future;
C. For a trial by jury;
D. For a pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and recovery of his costs,
including reasonable attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988 for all 42 U.S.C. 1983
claims; and
E. For any and all other relief to which he may be entitled.
Dated: May 15, 2017

Garden City, New York
BARKET MARION EPSTEIN & KEARON
By:
Amy B. Marion, Esq.
666 Old County Road-Suite 700
Garden City, N.Y. 11530
(516) 745-1500
41
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
-
-_.)O~l(.,v ~~1c5 .4rvl;,_,,.,rd elf !~cr'JEY.ff C!Pt-;1/i?:-<:nrJ f'i
. qav-e Jc:.c{ /-o ~Jy's ay+. /es Cov-"Pe?"'xe
v'i/L< a
t /
w:/' J{e'l~ .PoLMJ d""v:'ur ;s:e4~t, c-C'- fh/h/"y S /T-'s't J~~-"c."L
Ovtc o~~tce.
STATEOFNEWYORK: COUNTY OFST. LAWRENCE
JUSTICE COURT VILLAGE OF POTSDAM
SEARCH WARRANT
TO: The Potsdain Police Department and the New .YorkState Police or any police officer
employed or having general jurisdiction to act as a police officer in the County of St. Lawrence,
NewYork.
You are hereby directed to conduct a search of the residence of Oral N . Hillary, locatedat
Meadow EastApartments, 118LeroyStreet, f\partmentE6, Potsdam, New York which-is
described as the third floor western mostapartment located in building E and numbered E6, a
multiple dwelling, residential strUcture, wooden:franied, three story building; for the following
designated property or kinds ofproperty and for the purpose ofseizing same:
Any evidence of crimes in violation ofNew York State PenalLaw Articles 120, 125, and/or 140
including but not limited to the homicide of Garrett J. Phillips and including but not limited to
blackcolored tni.ckpants with possible material damage, muddy, soiled, or wet clothing,DNA
transfer, key or keys to 100 Market Street, Apartment 4, Potsdam, New York; muddy sneakers or
shoes, bandages or first aid items, ace bandages, used ice packs, receipts for recent purchases of
same, or evidence of injuries that may have been sustained while -inflicting injury to the victim of
the crime and while fleeing the crime scene, blood, hair, fibers and other trace evidence thereon~
and any physical or trace evidence that connects Oral N. Hillary with the victim Garrett]. Phillips
which may be found in or upon the following designated or described place. ,
You are directed to execute this warrant between the hours of 6:00A.M. and 9:00 P.M~ OR: This
Court having specially so determined, you are authorized to execute this warrant at anytime of the
day or night.
The applicant makes further request that such search warrant be made executable at any time of
the day or night on the grounds thatthere is reasonable cause to believe that such search warrant
cannot be fully executed between the hours of 6:00AM and 9:00PM due to the type of evidence
beingsought, the .fact the evidence i s readily able to be destroyed, and the length of time it will
take to complete the search.
You are directed to return and deliver this warrant and any property seized purSuant thereto to this
Court without uhnecessary delay.
This warrant is issued this 26th day of October, 2011.
Hon. Nicholas Pignone
Potsdam Village Justice

EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT F
EXHIBIT F
1
'\
' UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
'l:. ' ..\..., "'"'
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ORAL HI LLARY,
Plaintiff,
-vs- Docket# : 12-CV- 01669
VILLAGE OF POTSDAM, EDWARD TISCHLER,

Individually and in his Official
Capacity, MARK MURRAY, Individually and
in his Official Capacity, CHARLIE
DANIELS, I ndi vidual ly and in his
Official Capacity, !>rliCHAEL AMES,
',. Individually and in his Official
Capacity, POLICE OFFICERS JOHN DOE
1-100, I nd i vidually and in their
Official Capacity ,
Defendants.
DEPOSITION OF : MARK R, MURRAY
Potsdam, New York 13676

DATE : FebruarY, 4, 2014
TIME : 2 : 00 p . m. to 5:55 p . m.
LOCA'fiON : 2 Park Street
Potsdam,, New York 13676
TAKEN BY: Counsel for the Plaint iff

.
-----'"
M. Murray; 2/4/14; Potsdam, NY
Examination by Mr. Tafari
135
1 Q. Okay. Lieutenant Murray, did you ever apply for an
2 arrest warrant for Mr. Hillary?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Okay. Did you ever spe ak to former DA Nicole Duve
5 about the -- about the Garrett Phillips case?
6 A. We've discussed the Garrett Phillips case several
7 times, yes.
8 Q. Did you ever discuss inch Mr. Hillary with -- with
9 former DA Nicole Duve ?
10 A. Yes .
11 Q. And did you ever ask her whether or not Mr. Hillary
12 would be arrested?
13 A. I don't think I specifically asked her that
14 question. We talk d about the pitfalls of potential
15 prosecution of the case and obviously discussed our physical
16 evidence, DNA evid nee, circumstantial evidence, all the
17 merits of the case and how it -- how it would go in a
18 prosecution. I
19 Q. Did you tiscuss the prosecution of Mr. Hillary with
20 former DA Nicole DJve?
21 A. I don't
r I'm not sure I understand. Specifically
22 Oral Hillary?
23 Q. Correct.
Burnham Reporting (315) 379 - 0205

M. Murray; 2/4/14 ; Potsdam, NY
-- 1 A. The case itse lf, he was discussed as a high , high

136
2 person of interest or potential suspect, yes .
3 Q. Okay . Now , just to be clear , there were never any
4 witnesses that saw Mr . Hillary harm Garrett Phill ips?
5 A. Dependi ng on your d efi n ition of h arm. I mea n,
6 there's different kinds of, you know, psychologica l harm or
7 physical harm. Th ere are depositions that articulate what
8 people perceive as Mr . Hillary treated Garrett as less than
9 ideal.
10 Q. Okay.
11 A. People ' s perceptions of their relationship was
12 different than Mr. Hil l ary describes it I guess is how I'd
13 say.
14 Q. All right . Has anyone -- is there any physical
15 evi dence that

conTts Mr . Hi l lary to the Garrett Phil lips
16 homicide?
17 A. Yes. !
18 Q. What wou ld that be?
19 A. I would ffer his ankle injury as highly suspicious
20 given its nature a d method of discovery and how it seems to
21 be very congruent ith the method of egress from the homicide
-, 22 scene window.
23 Q. So in your opinion, Mr. Hillary ' s ankle injury
Burnham Reporting ( 315) 379-0205

-- , 137
1 connects him to the Garrett Phillips homicide?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Any other physical injury that connects -- any
4 other physical connection between Mr. Hillary and the Garrett
5 Phillips homicide?
6 MR. MORTATI: Objection to form. You can answer.
7 A. Any other physical evidence that links Mr. Hillary

;
8 to the homicide
'
of i Garrett Phillips? Depending on your
!
9 definition of phys!cal evidence , I mean, obviously there's a
10 lot of circumstantial factual basis for my feeling that he's
11 linked to the case. The DNA reports , if you really read into
12 them, for instance) the DNA profile, it ' s neither inclusive

i
13 nor exclusive . He can neither be included nor excluded from
14 the crime scene in certain spots so, you know, there ' s
15 potential that may e down the road there's better DNA
16 processes that wou d be able to, you know, definitively
17 exclude him or inc ude him. I mean, I'm hopeful for that.
18 Q. You're h peful for the inclusion or the exclusion?
19 A. I just w nt justice. I don't -- if he's included
20 or excluded, I jus want him to be either cleared if he
21 didn't do this or harged if he did do this.
-- 22
23
Q.
cleared?
Okay. S at this point to you Mr. Hillary is not
Burnham Reporting (315) 379-0205

Examination by Mr. Tafa ri
138
1 A. Absolutely. To my point , at this point in time as
2 everything sits, I don't think he is excluded from the
3 investigation, no.
4 Q. Okay. So you do not believe Mr. Hillary to be
5 innocent of killing Garrett Phil l ips?
6 MR . MORTATI: Objection to form. You can answer.
7 A. I do believe that Nick Hill aLy killed Garrett
8 Phillips, yes .
9 Q. Is that ~hat your gut tells you?

i
10 MR. MORT~TI: Objection to form. You ca n answer.
,.-.. ....,
11 A. That ' s what the facts of this that ' s what the
12 facts of this case speak to me and say , yes.
13 Q. Okay. If you were the DA , would you prosecute

I
14 Mr. Hillary for thls murder?
15 MR . MORT TI: Objection. Don't answer. Mani , he's
16 not the DA an he can ' t rnake that determination. You ' re

I
17 asking him to lanswer a hypothetical for a position he
18 can ' t hold no J could he possibly hold because he doesn't
19 have a law detree , first of all. Don't answer that
20 q u estion , it ' $ rid i culous.

!
21 MR. TAFA~I: Mark it for a ruling , please.
22 MR . MORTt TI: Please do.
23 Q. What ' s the biggest reason you think-- let me put

139
1 it this way: What ' s the biggest factor connecting
2 Mr. Hillary to t h is homicide?
3 t-JR. MORTATI: Objection to fo .rm . You can answer .
4 A. His disdain for Garrett Phillips. The fact that
5 that was the only thing standing in the way between in Mr.
6 Hillary ' s opinion that I perceived standing in the way from
7 him having a relationship with Tandy Cyrus, now Tandy
8 Collins. And just I think he perceived that he was
9 d i srespected by havi ng the kids be the reason that their
10 relationship ended. I think there was a lot of animosity
11 held up that of everything this was the reason -- and maybe
12 it was just the only Tandy used as an excuse, but for
13 whatever reason I think that that really hurt him.
14 Q. Do you believe everything Ms. Tandy Cyrus has told
15 you during the cou~se of t h is investigation?
16 A. No. And\ I also forgot to include in the physical
17 evidence part , the most compelling part that really , you
18 know , seals it for me was the videotape of Mr . Hillary
19 stalking Garrett , ~ou know , literally 10 minutes before his
20 death. That ' s pre ty compelling physical evidence to me .
21 Q. Okay. Y u say the physical evidence . Did you see
22 Mr . Hillary stalkiqg Garrett Phillips?
23 A. On videotape , yes .

- 145
1 Q. But you never showed Mr. Hillary the video;
2 correct?
3 A. I don ' t know how I articulat e that I c an link, you
4 know , known facts to come to a really logical conclusion ,
5 but, yes, that ' s what -- that ' s how I ' m arriving there.
6 Mr. Hillary testified that he's in his vehicle at that
7 parking lot that date , time and location. He ' s the only
8 Honda CRV that color, model, make, whatever , at that time
9 period so I ' m leaping forward to the conclusion that that was
10 Mr. Hillary in his vehicle, like he said.
--
.. ..._
11 Q. So you ' ~e making an assumption that that was?
12 A. No, I ' m making a conclusion based on two facts.
13 Q. Okay. ut the first fact that you ' re making the
14 conclusion based on , you didn ' t see the license plate of the
15 vehicle; correct?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. And you idn't see Mr. Hillary sitting in that
18 vehicle; correct?
19 A. Correct.
20 MR. TAFA I: All right. I think that's it unless,
21 if Mr. Mortat' has questions, I might have a few more.
22 EXAMINATION
23 BY MR. MORTATI:

EXHIBIT G
EXHIBIT G
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ORAL HILLARY,

Plaintiff ,
vs- Docket#: 12 - CV- 01669
VILLAGE OF POTSDAM, EDWARD TI SCHLER,

Individua lly and in his Off ici al
Capacity , MARK MURRAY, I nd i viduall y and
i n his Off icial Capaci ty , CHARLI E
DAN I ELS , Individually and i n his
Of f i c i al Capaci ty , MI CHAEL AMES,
I ndividually and in his Offici al
Capacity, POLICE OFFICERS J OHN DOE
1- 100 , Individual l y and in their
Offi c i a l Capacity,
Defendants .
DEPOSITION OF: EDWARD F. TISCHLER

Cant on, New York 13617
DATE: February 4, 2014
TIME: 10 : 48 a . m. to 12 : 58 p . m.
LOCAT I ON : 2 Park Street
Potsdam, New York 13676
TAKEN BY: Counse l for t he Plaintiff

j
E. Tischler; 2/4/14; Potsdam, NY
77
1 the Garrett Phillips homicide?
2 MR. MORTATI: Objection to form. You can answer.
3 A. We have no evidence at this point that shows his
4 fingerprints.
5 Q. You didn't get those results back?
6 A. No. We -- the evidence -- the results we got back
7 have not placed him at that crime scene.
8 Q. Okay. So you sent Mr. Hillary's fingerprints to a
9 lab; correct?
10 A. I believe so, yes, correct.
11 Q. Okay. And they checked those fingerprints to see
) 12 whether or not Mr. Hillary was connected to the crime;
13 correct?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. Did you receive results of those fingerprints?
16 A. As far as?
17 Q. Did you ever receive any word back on what happened
18 to the fingerprints you sent out?
19 A. I guess I'm a little confused on what kind of
20 results you -- results of what?
21 Q. Okay. Let me ask it this way: Why did you send
22 Mr. Hillary's fingerprints to the lab?
23 A. Because he's part of the investigation.

EXHIBIT H
EXHIBIT H
5/15/2017 MaryRain
MaryRain
May15,2014Canton
IwanttothankthefabulousjobdonebythePotsdamPDandNewYorkStatePoliceforajobwelldone.Itwas
greattoseeOralNicholasHillaryinhandcuffs.Itwasaveryemotionalweek.MyprayerscontinueforGarrett's
family.
Share
174
30shares
CharlieSharlowGreatjobMary!
May15,2014at5:06pm 1
ScottKronAwesomejob....
May15,2014at5:08pm 1
DonnaDeetsKeepupthegreatwork!
May15,2014at5:09pm 2
MaryMcIntoshKeepupthegoodworkMarytimeslikethisiswhyweallsupportagreatpersoninyourfield!!
May15,2014at5:11pm 1
DebSharlowWilliamsFantasticJobMary,NeverwassohappytoseetheNewsHeadlinescomeacrosstheTV
May15,2014at5:12pmEdited
KimMcPhersonThankYOU!!!!!!!!!
May15,2014at5:18pm 1
JohnKennedygoodjob..hopehe'stheone
May15,2014at5:21pm
BenEllisonNowhowcomeDuvcouldn'thavedonethis?Ithinkit'sbecausesheprollythoughtthatitwouldputabad
reponClarksonuniversity.CongratulationsMaryRainonputtingthisinthebooksforgood.
May15,2014at5:21pm 4
StormCilleyIfheisguilty,thejobisonlyhalfdone.I'llsavethecongratulationsuntilaftertheconviction.
May15,2014at5:23pm 1
DeniceSmithWelldone!
May15,2014at5:23pm
VolterVonBeanAsIexpectedfromyouMary,greatjobtoyou,yourstaff,allpoliceinvolved.Nicetoseejusticebeing
served.
May15,2014at5:24pm
JillSimms-WilsonCongrats!Ajobwelldone!
May15,2014at5:25pm
MarleneWatsonAmen.Thisiswonderfulnews.
May15,2014at5:32pm
AnnLofflerGreatjobMary!
May15,2014at5:35pm
MicheleM.Pelusi-CatlinYoukeptyourpromiseMary...thankyou
May15,2014at5:36pm 3
BrianMitchellJobwelldone!
May15,2014at5:36pm
CherishMcGowanProudtocallyouafriend,MaryRain.Greatjob.
May15,2014at5:37pm 1
JeffreyLashombAttaGirlMary!!
May15,2014at5:38pm 2
https://www.facebook.com/mary.rain.520 1/3
5/15/2017 MaryRain
RichardDillenbeckGreatjobMary.Youfulfilledyourpromisewhenyouranforofficeregardlessoftheoutcome-LET
JUSTICEBESERVED!
May15,2014at5:40pm 5
MarkT.DaltonCongratulationsandthatisAwesomeNews!
May15,2014at5:42pm
RussFinleyWelldone!
May15,2014at5:42pm 1
TinaTynonMartinThankYoutoall!Jobwelldone!!!Whoopwhoop!!!Hopeherotsinhell!!Nicetryplayingracism,Ass!
Feelsorryforhischildren.Godblessthem.
May15,2014at5:43pm
MichaelJRussellGreatjoball!EspeciallyourDA!Justiceshallprevail!
May15,2014at5:48pm 1
AmyBesawTy!
May15,2014at5:51pm
GeraldineLJohnsonYES........Finally.....Nowtogetsomejurors......couldbeaproblem.....afterallweallknowheis
guilty.
May15,2014at5:52pm
BobMerrifieldNowgethimconvicted
May15,2014at5:55pm 2
TimCurrierOneforthegood"guys".Congratulationstoallinvolved!GodBlessGarrett'sfamily!
May15,2014at6:00pm 2
JenShoen-JohnsonIknewyouwouldgethim,greatjob!MaryRain!
May15,2014at6:03pm
DaveWilliamsAjobwelldonebyaDAofficethatactuallywantstogetcriminalsoffthestreet&doestheirjob.Unlike
thepreviousadministrationinthatposition!!
May15,2014at6:18pm 2
DaveLaFaveAlsoagreatjobdonebyyourteamDAMary.
May15,2014at6:23pmEdited
DoraJudwareRichterGreatjobMary!!!!
May15,2014at6:29pm
JamesNortonBookumDano
May15,2014at6:32pm
MeridithAnnSpinelliGreatjobmyfriend!!!!
May15,2014at6:38pm
DianeCashmanSnyderGreatjobMary
May15,2014at6:47pm
KeithShaverAwesome
May15,2014at6:56pm
BrandiDavidCongratsforagreatjobonfinallytakingthiscasetothislevel
May15,2014at6:59pm
WillGrayOUTSTANDING!!!!YOUGOGIRL!!!
May15,2014at7:08pm
WillGrayThanksforajobwelldonefrommywifeCharlotteGrayandmyself.Outstanding.
May15,2014at7:09pm
MarilynCotaMary,it'sabouttimewegotsomeoneintheDA'sofficethatwantstoseeJusticeserved...thankyouso
much....
May15,2014at7:42pm 3
BobbieJoJamesonWaytogoMary.ITisallbecauseofYOU.Keepupthegoodworkandforalwaysmakingusproud.
May15,2014at8:01pm
MatthewFlynnIIHadnodoubts.Keepupthegoodwork,Mary!
May15,2014at8:10pm
5/15/2017 MaryRain
JimBellskiGreatjobMary!!Nowhammerhimtothefullestextentthelawallows.HopefullytheygetDuvetodefend
him.
May15,2014at9:03pmEdited 2
BrigettRitchieWaytogo!!!I'mgladsomeoneisfinallysteppinguptotheplateandgettingtothebottomofthis-thank
you,Mary!
May15,2014at8:47pm 1
DonnaMaloneyWehaveneededyouonthejobforaverylongtime.Goodwork.
May15,2014at9:06pm 1
BillGreeneGreatjobtoyouandtheNYStatePoliceandthePotsdampolice
May15,2014at9:30pm 1
KevinWellsGreatinteragencyandprosecuterwork
May15,2014at10:08pm 4
JamieAmoSuperbJobMaryKudos!!
May15,2014at10:28pm
FredJockihavebeenprayingthattheevilpersonwhodidthiswouldbeexposed.
May15,2014at10:51pm
TimAmoCongratsMaryRainonajobwelldone
May15,2014at11:03pm
AndreaMichelleLalondeGreatjobMary!!!!
May15,2014at11:13pm
KarenBrennanMaryyoualldidthejobofprofessionalsandconcernedcommunitymembers.Thankyouforallthatall
ofyoudidforjustice.
May15,2014at11:22pm
PatGagnonGREATJOBMARY!
May16,2014at8:42am 1
NeilWillmartniceworkmary
May16,2014at8:46am
DianaLausonSwansonIhavealltheconfidenceinthisworldYOUWILLbringjusticeforGarrettandhisfamily!
Wesoverymuchhaveneededapersonlikeyouforsolongcongratstoyouandallyourstaff!
May16,2014at2:13pmEdited 1
EXHIBIT I
EXHIBIT I
RXDatelTfIlle ... . -1110112011.10:13 P~002 .
./
NOV~1~201l08:54A FROM: ici:13153862855 . : P',2
llTIJ2011 .
../
. T()~hGm}i:Dlay.COnc.ern:
!~~~.~O~~~~~~~ie!~i:;;iJy~O~#J~!~:;.:r~~
..
J ". -; j.
.
.~~~~=~~~,,.:~~~~~~i~~~:

-'
Jmiff"f:~1il'i.91'
:.l~~~i.~~'~~t~~n~i~;~;
~n"gt~~~4=~~~~~~~i~.~~~!:t'.
...
.legat.c:lainiagainstmein
. the PotSdam:Vi11ageC()urt'thjsclaim<bQsr~4u~te(rfoi.tticfto provi~~cOtTlpenSation.
foqiilpaid
." ."
utilnybiUs and an aidineticketandaCcOmm()datiori,-aU(:)f~hiehJobn
.."." - .-.". -"., -
is r~ponsibte.fOr;>
- . " 4
ofjeJJlou,sy!
. .... . - ."- . ..Jri4iciillSy$temto'
. WJthtbis~lastincide~itslio\Vs.thatJobnis
_persOlllllg1l1dge~that
...... :
. . SIlPPod-his
'. "- -..,.
wiiIingiO-abus~'andll1isrisethe
v
.'.~~~:e~tf~;:ri~::~alir::z~:gi~~1f~~n:f;~i:~~:ae~~~ect.f9t.the.Poeeforc; s
._._..!:::l:-~~Jh~~~=~:=~:.etl.bei~gaIJ~-iliat
_ 6ttny~hil~n~eincJarigerbecauseOfthe~titstriJlg '..
v
.I, TandyCyrosrespeCtfully asTcthatactions. betaken to 'addressthistroublingsitua.tiolhwithout.tbeneeclto mm.
tOotherlegattemedi~s. '. ., , . '.
'.famextteinely featfulthis patternOf.bebavi~r Will.COIiti~~oreV~Iie~laieunless it is addressed,

iinmediateJy. .. .
'-"
.~~p~tfiilly>
'-' . Tandy L. Cyrus
'-./
EXHIBIT J
EXHIBIT J
EXHIBIT K
EXHIBIT K
EXHIBIT L
EXHIBIT L
1
\j
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
3 INDEX # 12-CV-01669
4
5 ORAL HILLARY,
6 Plaintiff,
7 vs.
8 VILLAGE OF POTSDAM, EDWARD TISCHLER, Individually
and in his Official Capacity, MARK MURRAY,
9 Individually and in his official capacity,
CHARLIE DANIELS, Individually and in his Official
10 Capac it v, MI CHAE I. AM~-1nci.itl.dua-l.-l---6-r-14-i-+'.:;1------.-----
h is Official Capacity, POLICE OFFICERS JOHN
11 DOE 1-100, Individually and in their Official
Capacity,
) 12
J
Defendants.
13
14
15 This is the Examination Before Trial of

16 IAN FAIRLIE
17 held on the 20th day of September, 2013,
18 held at Tioga County Office Building,
19 Owego, New York.
20
21
22 REPORTED BY: DELORES HAUBER
23 Shorthand Reporter
24 Notary Public
VE.1\1?.f-lil'M l\R'il01\1IX~ & VI1>t()

(~CC) 36~ - 33C>2
I 62
, correct
4 A 1 r s ions. f f erent t I
5 was l t a was ki of ove ear g
conversat on were loo ng l 0 ion of
s t y I was
ng or l some or
nformation I
1 were ng?
1 A st t I r s g we
'
1 'm i re, ets
14 was sically g that knew
5 ck d it. I to st for
6 me. I to,
r t if
t
EXHIBIT M
EXHIBIT M
EXHIBIT N
EXHIBIT N
St. Lawrence County
Office of the District Attorney
48 Court Street, County Courthouse
Canton, New York 13617-1169
Telephone: 315-379-2225 Fax: 315-379-2301
Mary E. Rain
District Attorney
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 13, 2014
DA MARY RAIN DETERMINED TO RE-INDICT ORAL NICHOLAS HILLARY
After considering all the options and after consulting the Phillips and Collins
family, District Attorney Mary Rain has determined to re-indict Oral Nicholas
Hillary. When considering the option to appeal, DA Rain said, it could take an
additional 18 months before the family received justice and that is unacceptable.
The process to re-indict will start Monday.
EXHIBIT O
EXHIBIT O
EXHIBIT P
EXHIBIT P
From: MicheleRobbins@ongov.net [mailto:MicheleRobbins@ongov.net] On Behalf Of
WilliamFitzpatrick@ongov.net
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2016 3:02 PM
To: perlin@cybgen.com
Subject: Truth on People v Oral Nicholas Hillary
Mark,
Let me respond to your recent request to address the National District Attorneys Association, a request I find
astonishing in light of your comments about my prosecution of Nick Hillary. In my business, nothing is more
important than the truth, and the truth needs to be told about that case, not the fictitious narrative you have
propagated on your website and in your self congratulatory lectures. While I have no doubt you market an
excellent product, one my office has employed on multiple occasions, and have altruistic motives, your
zealousness in attempting to smear Dr. John Buckleton has far exceeded the bounds of simply promoting one
viable product over another. That is so disturbing to me that I make the following observations that I am
sharing with my colleagues and associates in the forensic community.
1. Long before the Hillary trial started, you and I discussed the case in my office. You indicated that
TruAllele's results regarding the fingernail scrapings were inconclusive, rather than exclusion. In
other words, Hillary could neither be included nor excluded as the donor of the DNA under Garrett's
fingernails. You suggested to me various ways the New York State Police Laboratory (NYSP Lab)
might enhance the results and assist you in getting a final conclusion, advice which I followed. I am
confused, to say the least, as to why you would even suggest such a course of action if you, as you
now opine, felt that the results exonerated Nick Hillary.
We also discussed the overwhelming circumstantial evidence regarding Hillary, which you found to be
compelling.
2. After that discussion, you learned that defense counsel were relying on Alan Jamieson, a person you
referred to as an idiot, an opinion you confirmed with other members of my staff.
3. In one of our discussions about this case, I asked you about the 11 foreign alleles under Garrett's
fingernails, all above the NYSP Lab 50 RFU analytical threshold and all consistent with the murderer
being Nick Hillary. You opined that this was worthless as evidence as you believed RMP analysis
(accepted in every courtroom in America except in Saint Lawrence County) was not valid and only
TruAllele should be accepted in court.
4. Prior to trial, defense counsel made a motion for a Frye hearing, which was granted by the court. In the
decision granting the Frye hearing, the court specifically found that STRmix is absolutely generally
accepted in the scientific community, but that a hearing was required to determine the issue of
reliability of the STRmix results in this case given that the portion of DNA found in the fingernail
scrapings in the 550C2 sample from the minor contributor was very small and would be termed low-
template
(Decision/Order of Hon. Felix Catena dated July 11, 2016). It needs to be mentioned that the same lawyers
denouncing STRmix and championing TruAllele were the same lawyers who a few months earlier considered
TruAllele junk science. Sorry Mark, but integrity still matters. In addition, the defense's star witness at the
Frye hearing was Dan Krane, a person you have referred to as a liar.
5. Also prior to trial, I consulted a number of nationally recognized DNA experts, people that regularly
testify for either the prosecution or the defense, and explained my consternation about a lack of a
report from TruAllele and my belief that 11 foreign alleles, all matching defendant, had some
significance in this case. They all recommended Dr. John Buckleton, an expert I have long been
familiar with. Asking little about the case other than his ability to retrieve the data from the State
Police, Dr. Buckleton, employing the STRmix program, rendered an opinion finding a high likelihood
ratio that Hillary was the donor of the DNA under Garrett's fingernails. Interestingly enough, Dr.
Buckleton was later able to explain why TruAllele had reached a different result, a fact I was looking
forward to employing on cross-examination.
6. In a paradoxical decision, the judge precluded STRmix as the NYSP Lab had not done validation
studies on the software, which is not surprising as the Lab was not utilizing STRmix. What you have
never seemed to realize is that per his decision, TruAllele would have been precluded as well.
Meanwhile, after a jury was waived, a demonstrably guilty defendant went free. It is your reaction to that
verdict as an opportunity at self promotion and denigrating Dr. Buckletonwho incidentally has never said
an adverse word about you in my presencethat disgusts me.
7. In your September 28, 2016, posting on your website, you suggest that STRmix was rejected by the
judge as unreliable. That is demonstrably false.
You also interjected, in a most inappropriate manner, that you were pleased for Nick Hillary and his family.
Mark, don't congratulate yourself too much. Your alliance with lawyers that think TruAllele is junk, a
scientist you feel is an idiot and another you think is a liar helped the killer of a 12 year old boy walk free.
Not sure how much pleasure an objective scientist should derive from that.
8. On September 8, 2016, you posted on your website that the court rejected STRmix as reliable DNA
evidence and it's use of a 50 RFU threshold was unreliable as well. That is totally false. The 50 RFU
threshold is used by the NYSP Lab and the judge specifically found STRmix to be reliable. Your zeal
to replace STRmix, your #1 competitor, is affecting your rhetoric.
9. Apparently in your preparation for your Legal Aid lecture in front of the same people who denounced
you months ago for not revealing your source code or for propagating junk science, you posted The
Jamaican Clarkson University soccer coach was targeted from the outset. This is unquestionably
incorrect. I assume you revealed his ethnicity to play into the false narrative that this was a racial
prosecution. You also noted newly elected DA Mary Rain went shopping for another DNA opinion.
This is also utterly false. District Attorney Rain delegated the DNA work to me. It is to my everlasting
regret that I was unable to convince a judge about the value of this DNA evidence and that as a result
of that a sociopathic killer of a helpless 12-year-old boy now walks among us. Based on your website
postings Mark, you are no doubt pleased by that.
10. In November, you had a meeting with PCAST. Based on a Newsroom publication on your website,
you made the following statement:
In the Nick Hillary case mentioned by PCAST's report, there was no conflict between TruAllele and
STRmix. At 30 RFU and most other threshold levels, STRmix excluded Hillary. However, using a threshold
of 50 RFU, along with careful data selection, included him. STRmix conflicted with STRmix. This happened
because limited statistical modeling required data choices that introduced human
bias ( https://www.cybgen.com/information/presentations/2016/PCAST/Perlin-Transparency in-DNA-
evidence/page.shtml ). This is a blatant misstatement. STRmix generated a higher likelihood ratio at 30
RFU. Unless you somehow obtained the STRmix software and generated your own report, absent training
from the developers of STRmix, you have no basis to make this statement. And, as I stated above, Dr.
Buckleton used the 50 RFU analytical thresholdthe threshold used by the NYSP Lab. I hope for your sake
that this comment was based on a misunderstanding or poor editing rather than an intentional act of deception.
Maybe you should take some time off from your STRmix bashing tour to look up the following case, Giglio v
United States (92 US 763 [1972]). I hope this explains as succinctly as possible my position.
If you in any way have evidence to counter my factual assertions, please sharethem or post them on your
website.
From:"Dr. Mark W. Perlin" <perlin@cybgen.com> To:Fitzpatrick William <WilliamFitzpatrick@ongov.net>,
Date:11/01/2016 09:46 AM
Subject:Re: Jamieson
Bill,
Speaking of Allan Jamieson, he is expanding his defense expert business in the US. Some prosecutors I work
with asked for information about him.
Have you collected documents, statements, transcripts, etc. on him? If so, could you share them with me?
Thanks. - Mark
PS: I testified for the Commonwealth yesterday in Virginia v. David Brown.
The prosecutors urged to me speak at an NDAA forensic evidence program. I regularly teach to statewide
prosecutor groups, and would be happy to lecture for the national group.
========================
Mark W. Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD
Chief Scientific and Executive Officer perlin@cybgen.com
Cybergenetics
Omega Building, Suite 210
160 North Craig Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
USA
412.683.3004
412.683.3005 FAX
www.cybgen.com
EXHIBIT Q
EXHIBIT Q

05.15 HIllary Federal Complaint W Exhibits

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

05.15 HIllary Federal Complaint W Exhibits

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

05.15 HIllary Federal Complaint W Exhibits

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY, ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY DISTRICT

VILLAGE OF POTSDAM, VILLAGE OF POTSDAM POLICE

ONONDAGA COUNTY, ONONDAGA DISTRICT ATTORNEY

NEW YORK STATE POLICE, NEW YORK STATE POLICE OFFICER

boy named Garrett Phillips was found dead.

(also known as Tandy Collins).

charges were brought against him at that time.

charged with the death of Garrett Phillips.

and arising out of Defendants defamatory statements.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

under 42 U.S.C. 1983.

because that is the judicial district in which the Plaintiff resides.

County employees all times relevant and pertinent to Plaintiffs complaint.

County of St. Lawrence and the State of New York.

exercise home rule.

County of St. Lawrence and the State of New York.

employees all times relevant and pertinent to Plaintiffs complaint.

County of St. Lawrence and the State of New York.

24. Defendant County of Village of Potsdam is a body politic and corporate

empowered to exercise home rule.

to the duly appointed Board of trustees for the Village of Potsdam.

times relevant and pertinent to Plaintiffs complaint.

and the State of New York.

28. Defendant County of Onondaga is a body politic and corporate empowered to

exercise home rule.

31. The individually named New York State Trooper/Officer/Investigator/Crime Lab

32. At all times relevant to this complaint, New York State

Trooper/Officer/Investigator/Crime Lab Defendants were duly appointed and acting as New

York State Troopers/Officers/Investigators/Crime Lab Defendants and/or agents of New York

State Troopers/Officers/Investigators/Crime Lab Defendants, acting under color of state law,

customs and usage of the State of New York.

employed and employee of the New York State Police.

as Assistant Director/Director of Biological Sciences New York State Police Forensic

a bang and someone say help or no in a neighboring apartment.

(apartment 4) at 100 Market Street in Potsdam, New York.

down to his car to get his emergency equipment.

strip searched, and held for ten hours.

University which is located in Potsdam, New York.

were living apart.

the death of Tandy Cyrus son.

dated Garrett Phillips mother.

targeting Nick Hillary.

considered a suspect. See Exhibit E.

CAUSE FOR RETALIATION

deprivation of his rights on October 26, 2011.

District of New York shortly thereafter.

Village and several individually named Village of Potsdam police officers.

law enforcement officials and officers. 1

convened a grand jury.

person of interest or potential suspect. See Exhibit F.

actively pursuing an arrest in Garrett Phillips case.

encouraged her to run for the job. 5

has been used before in his courtroom. 6

Nick Hillary for Garrett Phillips murder. 7

on these baseless accusations which were not supported by a shred of evidence.

was getting along fine with Tandy . . . . 8

outright lie. See Exhibit K.