Sides in JCPD corruption lawsuit tussle over evidence

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (WJHL) — The wide gulf between attorneys in the federal lawsuit alleging Johnson City police corruptly protected alleged serial rapist Sean Williams was on display at a motion hearing Wednesday over subpoenas and depositions.

In the second in-person hearing in the past two months, federal Magistrate Judge Jill McCook heard plaintiffs' attorney Vanessa Baehr Jones argue that her team needs wide latitude to review cell phone logs and question an officer about his financial activities. Defense attorneys have filed motions to disallow those actions, saying they are overbroad and that plaintiffs have failed to show any evidence of corruption.

Baehr Jones and partner attorneys filed a suit in June 2023 on behalf of nine anonymous alleged victims of sexual assaults by Williams. The suit has undergone two amendments and a third is pending, as is a request for it to be granted class action status. Its main claims remain the same: that from at least 2018 to 2021 Williams drugged and sexually assaulted dozens of women with impunity thanks to JCPD officers allegedly looking the other way — some in exchange for payments.

Williams, whom Johnson City police never arrested or charged with any sex crimes, was arrested in late April 2023 in Western North Carolina for suspected drug crimes.

Police there allegedly discovered digital evidence of him sexually assaulting more than 60 different apparently-drugged women in his Johnson City apartment. They also found alleged evidence of child sexual assault, and Williams, 52, goes on trial Tuesday on three counts of enticing a minor for the purpose of producing child pornography.

Attorneys for Johnson City and individual defendants have denied all the civil claims. They say that despite dozens of depositions of officers and others, as well as subpoenas of text messages, police reports and other discovery material, Baehr Jones and her colleagues haven't produced any solid evidence.

"There's no credible evidence that anyone accepted money from Sean Williams," Keith Grant, an attorney for Johnson City Police Department (JCPD) officer Justin Jenkins (who's currently dismissed from the suit) said. Grant spoke as he argued Jenkins shouldn't have to testify about his financial activity in a deposition.

Baehr Jones argued the opposite, and said the "overwhelming evidence" plaintiffs have and need to add to is likely to be mostly or completely circumstantial.

"We've provided evidence (corruption) was coordinated to the very highest levels of JCPD," she said. "We need to attempt to prove what we've set forth."

She argued that cell phone logs from former JCPD Capt. Kevin Peters and particularly from officer David Hilton, who oversaw several investigations related to Williams, could help uncover more evidence of collusion between officers at critical points during the Williams case. She said she's already tailored date ranges, limiting them to time frames when significant events were occurring in the Williams case and officers, if they were conspiring, would very possibly be communicating about those events.

Other defense attorneys, though, offered similar assessments to Grant's. Emily Taylor, who represents the city and argued against an effort to subpoena Hilton's cell phone records, said defense counsel has often provided information only to see the plaintiffs essentially "take a mile" when they're given an inch.

"History in this case has taught us that we need to try to ensure what we produce is relevant ... and is not going to lead to these fishing expeditions we've been dealing with the last few months," Taylor said.

Baehr Jones had an entirely different take.

"This is a case where there is overwhelming evidence," she said. She said plaintiffs have added a significant amount of it to the record in recent weeks as they have prepared and filed a proposed third amended complaint. That latest version seeks to bring both Jenkins and former Capt. Kevin Peters back in as defendants after lead Judge Travis McDonough removed them from the case in August.

Baehr Jones said her team has included "very detailed" — though circumstantial — evidence in its filings and that "defense counsel do not want to engage with these facts."

Baehr Jones said financial records from JCPD officer Toma Sparks, Jenkins, and Williams' former business partner show clear evidence that some type of financial corruption was occurring. Defense attorneys argued that the lack of a conclusive smoking gun is due to the allegations being false.

She said "less intrusive" methods such as deposing officers about their phone calls and activities are almost certain to fail in producing solid evidence, since no one is likely to testify truthfully if they've actually engaged in corrupt behavior.

Access to cell phone logs, questioning Jenkins about his financial activities and similar strategies defense counsel argues are intrusive and irrelevant are, instead, building blocks in their overall case, Baehr Jones said.

Grant, though, said he's seen too many instances in this case when defense attorneys try to be cooperative and the plaintiffs' counsel, in his view, twist what's provided to reach unsupportable conclusions. He said Jenkins has already provided detailed financial information, and that plaintiffs have alleged, incorrectly, that it points to his involvement in payoffs involving an ex-partner of Williams.

"I do not expect much of the evidence we need in this case will be obtained through depositions," Baehr Jones said.

Grant said Jenkins doesn't opposed being deposed, but does think questions about his financial activities will only be designed to annoy, embarrass, harass and unduly burden his client while not yielding any relevant information.

"Whatever he says in his deposition, that's suddenly going to be evidence that he's involved in the alleged conspiracy," Grant argued.

McCook said she'll rule on the motions, which also include a plaintiffs' request to unseal certain files related to one Williams victim's case, soon.

Also pending is McDonough's ruling on whether to allow the third amended complaint, whether to allow Peters and Jenkins to be added back in as defendants, and whether to certify the lawsuit as a class action. Trial is set for August 2025.