Craig v. S. Dakota
| Docket Number | 4:23-CV-04056-KES |
| Decision Date | 29 August 2023 |
| Parties | JERRY LEE CRAIG, SR., Plaintiff, v. STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, in service of the people, official capacity; GRANT FLYNN, Attorney General, Official Capacity; BRENT FLUKE, Warden, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota |
Plaintiff Jerry Lee Craig, Sr., is an inmate at the Mike Durfee State Prison in Springfield, South Dakota. Docket 6 at 2. Craig filed a pro se lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. at 3. The court granted Craig's motion for leave to proceed in form pauperis. Docket 8. Craig paid his initial filing fee. Craig provided a brief in support of his complaint that included a motion to call witnesses. Docket 2 at 4. This court will now screen Craig's complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
I. 1915A Screening
The facts alleged in Craig's complaint are: that defendants violated his Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights when he was convicted following a 2013 jury trial based on “NO evidence, and a statement inserted to the trial which BY RIGHT should have been inadmissible in court due to the violation of [M]iranda.” Docket 6 at 3-4 (emphasis in original). Craig asserts he is incarcerated “due to a statement gained with out [sic] the issuance of Miranda warning, in an intearigation [sic] where no warning was given, [n]o attorney was allowed-even after request was made.” Id. at 4. He alleges he has been incarcerated for more than ten years after he “was denied a full and fair investigation, or consideration as to the effect it would have.” Id. at 5. Craig had a criminal trial that he alleges was “a concerted effort to skirt the law and keep ever so slightly to the side of legal, but in that it failed” for violations of spousal testimonial privilege, Miranda rights, and the right to a fair and unbiased trial. Docket 2 at 3.
Craig was arrested on September 6, 2012, when he was “removed from [his] home, employment, family with out [sic] due process.” Docket 6 at 5. Craig was convicted at a jury trial in state court on June 4-5, 2013, for “three counts of 1st Degree Rape SDCL 22-22-1(1), three counts of Sexual Contact with a child under the age of sixteen SDCL 22-22-7, and one count of Aggravated Incest SDCL 22-22A-3(1).” Docket 2-1 at 1. He alleges his grand jury indictment and jury trial were improper because no evidence was presented and he did not confess. Docket 2 at 7. He also claims that the criminal investigation into his charges was insufficient because “the police had never interviewed the school, class mates, educational history, or [his] conduct to ascertain validity of the accusations prior to being charged, to have had any basis in fact.” Id. Craig alleges that “[t]he neighbors were to [his] knowledge, not interviewed, and only the statement of the child was considered.” Id.
Prior to his arrest, Craig was questioned only once about the facts for which he was arrested. Id. at 9. Craig appeared at the Kennebeck County Sheriff's Office after allegedly being lied to in order to produce his appearance. Id. Craig alleges the officers did not read him his Miranda rights and denied his request for counsel. Id. Craig attempted to cooperate because he “wasn't and [is] not guilty then and [is] not now.” Id. Craig claims he answered the questions because he “knew well that they were investigating the accusations against [him] and [he] wanted the opport[]unity to tell [his] side.” Id. Craig alleges that during the questioning the officers were only interested in his predisposition to guilt, seeking only a confession. Id.
Detective Tanner Johndahl, who was present during the questioning, testified at Craig's criminal trial that Craig stated he committed “no crime,” but Johndahl stated before the jury that in his opinion Craig's statement was not true. Id. Craig alleges that admitting Johndahl's statement at trial was improper because “there was NO STATEMENT admissible to trial since the [Miranda] right was never read, and NEVER waved [sic].” Id. (emphasis in original).
At Craig's criminal trial, he asserts that the State subpoenaed his wife as a witness, in violation of spousal privilege. Id. at 15. Craig's wife did not testify, but she was sequestered from the court and the jury, which “removed her expressed support from the presence of the jury to cast doubt in the eyes of the jury members that [he] had family support.” Id. Craig asserts that “[s]o even as she did not testify, she was compelled to, and removed from the presence of the jury unlawfully, violating the right of spousal privilege.” Id. Craig claims that it was improper because “[n]o explanation or comment was made as to her absence, no advisory given as to how a wife is a witness against her husband” and that it likely caused the jury to think “[i]f the wife doesn't come in support of the man[], then what are we [the jury] to consider?” Id. Craig asserts that because of the state court's subpoena of his wife “[i]n this manner both Due Process and the ethical standards of the court were violated with intent and to pre-impose of an out come [sic] preferred to a court of bias[.]” Id.
Judge Tony Porta presided over Craig's criminal trial in 2013, and he had previously presided over the custody hearing of Craig's daughter and her children, one of whom was Craig's accuser. Id. at 5; Docket 2 at 8, 11. Craig alleges Judge Porta presiding over the criminal case was a conflict of interest because Judge Porta refused to appoint Scott Kuck as counsel for Craig noting that Kuck had a conflict of interest, but Judge Porta did not recuse himself from the case for the same reason. Docket 2 at 8. Craig claims this was a misuse of power, abuse of discretion, act of malfeasance, and violation of ethics. Id. Craig asserts that his appointed counsel, Christopher Dohrer, withheld evidence that would have validated that coercion occurred to the accuser. Id. at 11.
Craig claims Judge Porta committed abuse of discretion because (1) he continued to preside over Craig's criminal trial after becoming aware of exculpatory evidence that affected Craig's trial; (2) violated spousal privilege, although Craig's “wife was not called to the stand, the compelling action was made, the right violated and the damage done[;]” (3) allowed evidence in violation of Miranda to be presented before the jury that falsely asserted a confession; (4) withheld exculpatory evidence Judge Porta knew from the custody hearing over Craig's daughter and her children; (5) allowed biased testimony from Johndahl; and (6) misused discretion in sentencing to 150 years in custody when Craig “had No prior sex crimes, None present, and nothing to suggest any might occur.” Id. at 13.
Craigs claims Judge Porta committed malfeasance because Judge Porta was aware of evidence that benefited the defense and excluded the evidence from the court and jury. Id. at 11. He states that the evidence relates to the family environment of his daughter's children and would have resulted in a different outcome had the jury heard the evidence. Id. The evidence was family counseling history, which Craig provided this court. Id. at 10; Docket 2-1 at 317. The evidence was “allegedly” excluded to protect the interests of the children, but Craig states that the children were already removed from the home prior to the trial and were “in no danger[.]” Docket 2 at 11. The jury did not learn that the children were removed from the home, which Craig claims was improper. Id. Craig claims this violated his right to confront his accuser and denied his right to exculpatory evidence. Id. at 10. Craig asserts that these records expose statements that would be considered perjury and that failure to admit the records into evidence violated his right to a fair and unbiased trial by a jury of his peers. Id.
Upon entering prison, Craig was in reasonably good health but soon after experienced soreness in his joints. Id. at 12. He went to medical at the prison where he was provided a medication called etodolac, which can cause kidney and thyroid disease after prolonged use. Id. Craig was warned of the possible side effects but was offered no alternative, because other treatments were not allowed or offered in the prison. Id. Craig was not told he had experienced side effects until he developed stage three chronic kidney disease. Id. Craig was monitored by medical staff during the process but was not informed until stage three. Id.
Craig alleges that his son died during Craig's incarceration, and “[t]hough the prison cannot be blamed for his [son's] death, it can be held accountable for the absence of [Craig's] presence, and perhaps if [Craig had] been around [his son] might not have passed away.” Id. Craig asserts that while incarcerated he has been separated from his wife of forty-four years, whom he is still in contact with and could still find, know, and preserve quality time with if together. Id.
Craig states that labeling him as a sex offender amounts to slander and Id. at 14.
Craig alleges that “[i]n [his] appeals and effort to bring this [improper conviction] to light, there's been no review as to [his] case by a fair, objective and impartial appellate court.” Id. Craig asserts that Judge Richard Sommers of the South Dakota Fifth Judicial Circuit “rubber stamped” Craig's wrongful conviction, when Judge Sommers...
To continue reading
Request your trial