Date: 07-06-2023

Case Style:

Elmer Daniels v. United States of America, et al.

Case Number: 1:20-CV-1592

Judge: Stephanie Bibas

Court: United States District Court for the District of Delaware (New Castle County)

Plaintiff's Attorney: Raj Srivatsan

Defendant's Attorney: Daniel A. Griffith

Description: Plaintiff Elmer Daniels, by his undersigned attorneys, files this Complaint against the United
States of America, Michael P. Malone, the City of Wilmington, Philip Saggione III, and John Does
1-10 for violating his rights and causing his wrongful incarceration. He alleges as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. In 1980, Elmer Daniels, an 18-year-old black male, was wrongfully convicted of
raping G.S.,1 a 15-year-old white female, by an all-white jury of his “peers” in the Superior Court for
New Castle County, Delaware.
2. As a result, Mr. Daniels, who was innocent of the crime and had no involvement in
it, lost nearly 40 years of his life for a rape he did not commit.
1 The Complaint refers to all individuals who were minors at the relevant times by their initials.
Case 1:20-cv-01692-SB Document 1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 1 of 26 PageID #: 1
2
3. Mr. Daniels’ wrongful conviction was no accident. It was the result of serious
misconduct by Federal Bureau of Investigations Special Agent Michael P. Malone, who analyzed the
hair samples retrieved from Mr. Daniels and G.S. and erroneously concluded and testified to the jury
that the hair evidence “increase[d] the probability tremendously” that Mr. Daniels committed the
rape. Outside of this erroneous testimony, no forensic evidence inculpated Mr. Daniels.
4. The United States Department of Justice—both the FBI and the Office of the
Inspector General—later discredited Special Agent Malone’s testimony. The Delaware Attorney
General agreed with the FBI that Special Agent Malone’s testimony was not credible. Over the
years, Special Agent Malone’s flawed and scientifically unsupportable testimony resulted in at least
six convictions that have since been reversed.
5. In addition to the misconduct of the Special Agent Malone, Mr. Daniels’ wrongful
incarceration was the result of serious misconduct by the WPD officers investigating G.S.’s rape.
WPD Detective Philip Saggione, Detective Charles W. Esham,2 and WPD Officers John Does 1-10
intentionally, or with deliberate indifference, coerced the 15-year-old white young man, K.C., who
was with G.S. the day of the rape, to implicate Mr. Daniels. K.C.’s coerced statements led to G.S.’s
identification (which was itself the result of unconstitutional suggestion by Detectives Saggione,
Esham, and other John Does) of Mr. Daniels as the rapist.
6. Detective Saggione also intentionally, or with deliberate indifference, failed to
disclose exculpatory fingerprint evidence to the defense.
7. Eventually, Mr. Daniels received the exculpatory Fingerprint Report pursuant to a
Freedom of Information Act request. After disclosing the report to the parole board, Mr. Daniels
was released on parole.
2 Detective Esham is deceased.
Case 1:20-cv-01692-SB Document 1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 2 of 26 PageID #: 2
3
8. However, the parole board revoked Mr. Daniels’ parole, and he was sentenced to
three additional years of incarceration, in large part because he refused to admit guilt.
9. On November 30, 2018, based on Special Agent Malone’s misrepresentations as to
the hair evidence and the discovery that some information that Detectives Saggione and Esham had
coerced K.C. into providing was false, the Delaware Attorney General requested the dismissal of
Mr. Daniels’ Indictment.
10. On December 12, 2018, the Superior Court of the State of Delaware dismissed the
Indictment against Mr. Daniels. Mr. Daniels was truly free after almost four decades of wrongful
incarceration.
11. This lawsuit seeks redress for the injuries Mr. Daniels sustained as the result of
Defendants’ unconstitutional and wrongful misconduct.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
12. This action is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Federal Tort Claims Act
(“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671 et seq., and a Delaware state cause of action.
13. This Court has both federal question and supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331 and 1367.
14. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because the events leading to this
Complaint occurred in this judicial district.
15. On October 30, 2019, pursuant to 10 DE Code § 8124, undersigned counsel sent
notice to the Mayor of the City of Wilmington of Mr. Daniels’ claims.
16. The City did not respond.
17. On October 30, 2019, Mr. Daniels submitted an FTCA administrative claim (i.e., the
Standard Form 95) to the Federal Bureau of Investigations. On September 16, 2020, the FBI denied
Case 1:20-cv-01692-SB Document 1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 3 of 26 PageID #: 3
4
his claim in writing pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 14.9(a) & (b). Mr. Daniels has therefore exhausted all
administrative remedies under 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a).
PARTIES
18. Plaintiff Elmer Daniels was born in Wilmington, Delaware. At all times relevant to
this Complaint, he was a citizen and resident of the State of Delaware. Mr. Daniels currently resides
in Newport, Delaware. In the early morning of January 17, 1980, Mr. Daniels was wrongfully
arrested and incarcerated pending trial. On May 22, 1980, he was wrongfully convicted of first-
degree rape. As a result, Mr. Daniels spent nearly 39 years in prison until the indictment against him
was dismissed on December 12, 2018.
19. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is an agency within the United States
Department of Justice. As the FBI is an agency of the United States of America, the United States of
America is the appropriate defendant under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
20. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Michael P. Malone was a Special Agent
employed by the FBI. At all relevant times, Special Agent Malone was an officer of the United States
who was empowered by law to execute searches, to seize evidence, and to make arrests for
violations of federal law. He is sued in his individual capacity.
21. The Wilmington Police Department is an entity of the City of Wilmington. The City
of Wilmington is the appropriate defendant under the relevant law. The City of Wilmington
employed Detectives Saggione and Esham and John Does 1-10 via the WPD at all times relevant to
this suit. The City of Wilmington is a “person” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
22. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Detective Philip Saggione was an employee
of the City of Wilmington as a WPD officer, acting under color of state law and within the scope of
his employment under the statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs, and usage of the
WPD. For the investigation of the rape of G.S., Detective Saggione supervised other employees of
Case 1:20-cv-01692-SB Document 1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 4 of 26 PageID #: 4
5
the WPD, including Detective Charles W. Esham, who had been a detective for only approximately
two months at the time of the rape, and John Does 1-10. Plaintiff sues Detective Saggione in his
individual capacity.
23. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants John Does 1-10 were employees
of the City of Wilmington as WPD officers and agents, acting under color of state law and within
the scope of his employment under the statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs, and
usage of the WPD.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Fifteen-year-old G.S. says she was raped.
24. In January 1980, G.S. was a 15-year-old ninth grader attending Thomas McKean
High School.
25. On January 15, 1980, G.S. did not attend school, as school was out of session in
honor of Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday.
26. At approximately 3:00 p.m. on January 15, G.S. with three others—K.C., T.M., and
S.H.—attended a house party on Lovering Avenue in Wilmington. There were approximately twenty
people at the party.
27. According to G.S., after drinking a half glass of alcohol, at approximately 4:45 p.m.,
she, along with K.C.—someone she had just met that day and who was visibly intoxicated—left the
party to find a telephone so that she could call her mother to get permission to eat dinner at T.M.’s
house.
28. After walking approximately half a block, they arrived at a Getty gas station at the
intersection of Lovering Avenue and Augustine Cut-Off, where she was able to call her mother.
This phone call lasted about five minutes.
Case 1:20-cv-01692-SB Document 1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 5 of 26 PageID #: 5
6
29. After speaking with her mother, G.S. and K.C. walked up onto the overpass by the
railroad tracks, where they, according to G.S., sat and talked while waiting for T.M. to arrive.
30. According to G.S., while they were sitting and talking, at approximately 5:10 p.m., as
it started to get dark outside, an unarmed black man approached them and introduced himself as
“Jake Johnson,” a security guard for a steel company. He allegedly informed them that he was
patrolling the area because somebody had been taking steel.
31. According to G.S., the “colored” man, as she described him, then grabbed her by her
throat with his right hand, threw her back on the tracks, began choking her, started undressing her
with his left hand, and told her “he wanted to get off on [her].” He then forced her to have sex with
him.
32. According to G.S. and K.C., K.C. left the tracks shortly after he and G.S. were
approached by the man who introduced himself as “Jake Johnson,” and he did not try to help G.S.
fend off “Jake Johnson.”
33. G.S. testified that, after the rape, she pulled up her pants and walked back to the
street where the party was happening. She waited in 1832 Lovering Avenue—a house on the same
street as the party—until the police arrived.
34. When the Delaware Attorney General’s Office re-investigated this case, G.S. refused
to cooperate.
35. Elmer Daniels had nothing to do with the rape of G.S. He was not present during
the rape and had no contemporaneous knowledge of it or the true perpetrator. He was also not at all
familiar with Lovering Avenue, where the rape allegedly occurred.
36. At the time of the rape, Mr. Daniels was playing basketball at the Latin American
Community Center (the “Center”). The Center was open from 3:30 p.m. until 9:00 p.m. that day and
was located at the intersection of West Seventh Street and North Harrison Street in Wilmington,
Case 1:20-cv-01692-SB Document 1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 6 of 26 PageID #: 6
7
approximately fifteen blocks from the scene of the rape. The sign-in sheet for the Center
documented his presence there on January 15, 1980. Mr. Daniels was listed in the sign-in sheet
under his nickname, “Fudd.” When he was not playing basketball at the Center, Mr. Daniels was
assisting his mother by carrying her bowling ball to a neighbor’s home on North Harrison Street.
B. G.S. did not identify Mr. Daniels as the perpetrator on the night of the rape.
37. At around 5:46 p.m. on January 15, WPD Detectives Charles W. Esham and Gilbert
Howell responded to 1832 Lovering Avenue, where G.S. went after the rape.
38. Upon arrival, the detectives asked G.S. to describe her rapist. She described him as
five feet eight inches to six feet tall and as weighing about one hundred sixty-five pounds. She stated
that he had a short-cut afro, short sideburns, and wore a green army coat with tan dress pants. She
also stated that his fingernails were chewed down and that some of the skin on the sides of his
fingers were chewed down.
39. G.S. was then transported to the Delaware Division of the Wilmington Medical
Center, where WPD Patrolman Keven Quinn seized all of her clothing except for her underwear. A
police officer also put powder on her neck, presumably to retrieve the fingerprints left from her
being choked.
40. G.S. was then transported to the General Division of the Wilmington Medical
Center, where her underwear was seized, and hair samples were collected.
41. After leaving the second hospital, Detectives Esham and Howell, along with two
other officers, accompanied G.S. and her parents to the scene of the rape.
42. Close to midnight—approximately seven hours after the rape—G.S. was taken to the
Wilmington Police Station, where Detective Esham and certain John Does 1-10 showed her a 200-
to-300-person photobook that he referred to as “mug shots,” containing photographs of black
males who had been previously arrested.
Case 1:20-cv-01692-SB Document 1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 7 of 26 PageID #: 7
8
43. G.S. did not identify anyone in that photo array as the perpetrator.
C. Detective Saggione, Detective Esham, and certain John Does 1-10 coerced
K.C. into falsely implicating Mr. Daniels.
44. The evening of the rape (January 15, 1980) at approximately 7:00 p.m., WPD
Detective Dean Founds conducted the first, transcribed interview with the only known witness to
the rape, K.C. WPD Detectives, including certain John Does 1-10, documented three subsequent
statements from K.C.—a January 16, 1980, tape-recorded statement, a January 17, 1980, oral
statement, and a January 17, 1980, written statement.
45. In sum, K.C. gave four conflicting statements. Most notably, in his first and third
statements, K.C. indicated that he had not had sex with G.S. prior to being approached by “Jake
Johnson,” whereas in his second and fourth statements, he indicated that he had sex.
46. Throughout their interrogation of K.C., WPD officers, including Detectives
Saggione, Esham, and certain John Does 1-10, used coercive, suggestive, and unconstitutional
tactics. These tactics included, but were not limited to, questioning the 15-year-old K.C. late at night
in a WPD interrogation room, threatening to charge the minor with third-degree rape if he did not
accuse Mr. Daniels, and denying the kid access to his parents. Under the pressure of this
unconstitutional misconduct, K.C. broke. He falsely accused Mr. Daniels. With this false accusation,
K.C. became the only percipient eyewitness to the alleged rape.
47. On the night of K.C.’s first statement, Detective Founds knowingly interviewed
K.C., a vulnerable 15-year-old-minor, late into the night without his parents present. After the
interview concluded around 10:00 p.m. that night, instead of transporting K.C. home to ensure he
arrived safely, Detective Founds told K.C. to walk home.
48. On January 16, after K.C.’s first statement, in which he made no mention of Mr.
Daniels or knowing the perpetrator, and prior to his second statement, Detective Saggione, in an
interrogation room that included approximately eleven other officers, including certain John Does 1-
Case 1:20-cv-01692-SB Document 1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 8 of 26 PageID #: 8
9
10, informed K.C. that he had received a phone call. Detective Saggione claimed that he learned
from the call that K.C. was smoking a joint with Mr. Daniels at one o’clock on January 15 on the
overpass where the raped occurred.
49. Although K.C. knew the allegation regarding smoking a joint with Mr. Daniels to be
false, he agreed to having met with Mr. Daniels. K.C. feared that, as Detective Saggione and/or
certain John Does 1-10 had threatened, he would be charged with third-degree rape if he did not
adopt their version of the events. So he lied.
50. At the suggestion of Detective Saggione, Detective Esham, or certain other John
Does 1-10, K.C. went on to make the false statement that he knew Mr. Daniels because they
attended the eighth grade and were in math class together at Bayard Middle School in 1978.
However, Mr. Daniels, who was three years older than K.C., was not in middle school in 1978.
Indeed, Mr. Daniels’ conviction was overturned, in part, because it was later discovered that Mr.
Daniels did not attend the eighth grade with K.C. Mr. Daniels was in the 10th grade at Howard High
School and did not have a math class in 1978.
51. To ensure that K.C. was sufficiently coerced into adopting their version of events,
Detectives Saggione, Detective Esham, and certain John Does 1-10, arrested and imprisoned K.C.
for hindering prosecution3 prior to taking his fourth and final statement.
52. Having coerced K.C. into implicating Mr. Daniels, on January 16, 1980, Detectives
Saggione and Esham had G.S. come back to the Wilmington Police Station to view 40 to 50 photos,
which included a photograph of Mr. Daniels. G.S. identified Mr. Daniels as her rapist.
53. On information and belief, Detectives Saggione and Esham conducted that photo
array in an improperly suggestive manner in order to lead G.S. into identifying Mr. Daniels.
3 This charge was dismissed on May 15, 1980.
Case 1:20-cv-01692-SB Document 1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 9 of 26 PageID #: 9
10
D. Mr. Daniels is arrested and falsely charged with first-degree rape.
54. Based on the coerced, fabricated statement from K.C. and G.S.’s false identification,
at approximately 2:00 a.m. on January 17, 1980, WPD Detectives Saggione and Esham arrested Mr.
Daniels. He was separated from his home and family for the next four decades.
55. While raiding the three-floor home where Mr. Daniels lived with his family, the
WPD officers seized a green field jacket from Mr. Daniels’ brother’s second-floor bedroom, which
Mr. Daniels explained belonged to his brother. They also seized a pair of tan pants from Mr.
Daniels’ third-floor bedroom.
56. After transporting Mr. Daniels to the Wilmington Police Station, WPD officers
seized the clothing he was wearing at the time, including his underwear, and took hair samples.
57. Detectives Esham and Saggione questioned Mr. Daniels about the rape. Mr. Daniels
denied raping G.S. and informed them that he was playing basketball at the time of the rape and that
he was not familiar with Lovering Avenue, where the rape occurred. Despite this information, the
WPD detectives decided to pursue an indictment against Mr. Daniels.
58. Because the prosecutors did not know that the Detectives Saggione and Esham had
coerced K.C. to implicate Mr. Daniels or that they had suggestively obtained G.S.’s identification of
Mr. Daniels, the prosecutors charged Mr. Daniels with first-degree rape.
E. Detective Saggione, Detective Esham, and certain John Does 1-10 withheld an
exculpatory Fingerprint Report from the FBI.
59. On February 13, 1980, Mr. Daniels’ defense attorney sent the prosecutor a letter
requesting all discovery, including “[c]opies of all written reports of any scientific analyses conducted
in connection” with Mr. Daniels’ case.
60. On March 17, 1980, the prosecutor responded that “[t]he State recognizes its
continuing duty to supply any and all Brady material, but objects to pretrial discovery of the same.”
Case 1:20-cv-01692-SB Document 1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 10 of 26 PageID #: 10
11
61. On April 9, 1980, the FBI prepared a Report of the Latent Fingerprint Section
Identification Division, which was sent by registered mail to Harry F. Manelski, Chief of Police of
Wilmington. While the Fingerprint Report is redacted, the evidence suggests that Detectives
Saggione and Esham were the recipients of the Fingerprint Report.
62. In the Fingerprint Report, the FBI found that the fingerprints lifted from a notebook
found inside the seized green field jacket from Mr. Daniels’ brother’s second-floor bedroom and
from a beer can at the crime scene were “not the fingerprints of Daniels.” No fingerprints linked
Mr. Daniels to the crime. In sum, no actual forensic evidence—no fingerprints, no blood, no
semen—linked Mr. Daniels to the rape of G.S. As described below, only the false conclusions and
testimony of Special Agent Malone provided an alleged forensic link between Mr. Daniels and the
crime.
63. Detective Saggione, Detective Esham, and certain John Does 1-10 failed to provide
the FBI Fingerprint Report to the prosecutor. As a result, the prosecutor was unable to provide it to
Mr. Daniels and his defense attorney.
64. Had Mr. Daniel’s defense attorney had the FBI Fingerprint Report, then he would
have called a fingerprint expert to exonerate Mr. Daniels.
65. But because Detective Saggione, Detective Esham, and certain John Does 1-10
intentionally suppressed the FBI Fingerprint Report, the fingerprint evidence of innocence was
never mentioned at trial.
F. Special Agent Malone reaches unfounded conclusions regarding analysis of
hair.
66. Lacking a crime lab of its own, the WPD used the FBI’s laboratories to analyze
evidence, including both fingerprints and hair.
Case 1:20-cv-01692-SB Document 1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 11 of 26 PageID #: 11
12
67. Special Agent Michael P. Malone of the FBI reached a series of unfounded
conclusions regarding his analysis of hair purportedly found on G.S.’s underwear and Mr. Daniels’
pants.
68. Special Agent Malone was tasked with comparing (1) any known hairs or fibers from
G.S.’s underwear to the known hair sample submitted as being from Mr. Daniels, and (2) any known
hairs or fibers from the tan pants seized from Mr. Daniels’ bedroom to the known pubic hair
samples submitted as being from G.S.
69. Apparently blinded by confirmation bias, Special Agent Malone erroneously
concluded that a hair taken from G.S.’s underwear came from Mr. Daniels’ head and that a hair
taken from Mr. Daniels’ pants came from G.S.’s pubic hair. From these erroneous findings, he
erroneously concluded that this “double match” confirmed that Mr. Daniels was G.S.’s rapist.
70. In drawing these conclusions, Special Agent Malone failed to ask for or examine
hairs from K.C. (who had admitted to having sex with G.S. on the afternoon of the alleged rape) or
the hairs of other suspects or controls, and he exceeded the extent to which conclusions could be
drawn based on analysis of hair samples.
71. As described further below, at Mr. Daniels’ trial, Special Agent Malone erroneously
testified, based on hair samples that he was told belonged to the victim and the defendant, that one
of Mr. Daniels’ head hairs was on G.S.’s underwear and that one of G.S.’s pubic hairs was on Mr.
Daniels’ pants.
G. Defendants’ misconduct leads to the wrongful conviction of Mr. Daniels.
72. Mr. Daniels’ jury trial began on May 19, 1980, in the Superior Court of the State of
Delaware. Deputy Attorney General Bartholomew Dalton represented the State of Delaware and
Assistant Public Defender Edward C. Pankowski represented Mr. Daniels.
Case 1:20-cv-01692-SB Document 1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 12 of 26 PageID #: 12
13
73. Mr. Pankowski argued that Mr. Daniels was innocent and, as described below, called
several witnesses, including Mr. Daniels himself, to testify to the veracity of Mr. Daniels’ alibi on the
afternoon and evening of January 15.
1. Special Agent Michael P. Malone’s invalid scientific conclusions and
exaggerated testimony misled the jury.
74. At trial, Michael P. Malone, a Special Agent for the FBI, testified concerning his
conclusions from his scientific analysis. Testifying as a 10-year veteran of the FBI with a Master of
Science degree in biology and over six years of experience in microscopic analysis of hairs and fibers,
Special Agent Malone’s misstatements erroneously left little room for doubt that Mr. Daniels was
the perpetrator of the crime.
75. As noted above, Special Agent Malone was tasked with comparing (1) any known
hairs or fibers from G.S.’s underwear to the known hair sample submitted as being from Mr.
Daniels, and (2) any known hairs or fibers from the tan pants seized from Mr. Daniels’ bedroom to
the known pubic hair samples submitted as being from G.S.
76. Special Agent Malone testified that he had removed what he described as a black
head hair of “negroid” origin from G.S.’s underwear. He testified that the head hair exactly matched
Mr. Daniels’ in all individual microscopic characteristics, and therefore that the head hair either came
from Mr. Daniels or from another negroid individual whose head hairs exhibited the same individual
microscopic characteristics as the head hairs of Mr. Daniels.
77. Special Agent Malone testified that, on the tan pants, he found a brown pubic hair of
Caucasian origin which had been forcibly removed. He concluded that the pubic hair matched the
pubic hairs reported as being from G.S. in all individual microscopic characteristics, and therefore
that the hair from the pants either originated from G.S. or from another individual of the same
Caucasian race and with the same individual characteristics.
Case 1:20-cv-01692-SB Document 1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 13 of 26 PageID #: 13
14
78. At trial, Special Agent Malone conceded that hair comparisons could not be used to
make a positive identification and that he did not test hair samples from K.C. (who, based on K.C.’s
testimony, also had sex with G.S. on January 15, 1980), which were collected but never provided to
the FBI.
79. However, he also testified that evidentiary hair could be associated with a specific
individual to the exclusion of all others (that his analysis could “associate that hair with a particular
person”). He twice stated without reservation that he could identify the race of the person whose
hair was being analyzed (“It could not have originated from anybody of another race;” “We can
positively tell the race of the individual that the hair originated from.”). And he falsely implied that
the number of analyses that he had performed and the number of samples from different individuals
increased the likelihood that a hair belonged to a particular individual (“a double match like this
would increase the probability tremendously;” Q: “In your experience of several years and
thousands of examinations have you ever run across a case where there was a double match, as we
have here, and that sample that you matched came from another source other than the one you
identified.” A: “No.”).
80. Each of these statements to the jury was false and misleading. Each of them was
intended to convince the jury to convict Mr. Daniels rather than to convey the truth regarding the
limits of hair sample analysis.
81. As recognized by U.S. Justice Department Special Counsel Norman Wong in a
January 31, 2018, letter to the Delaware Department of Justice, all three representations by Special
Agent Malone exceeded the limits of science and were therefore invalid.
82. In exceeding the limits of science, Special Agent Malone—the apparent expert on
hair and fiber analysis at trial—falsely led the jury to believe that his findings increased the
probability that Mr. Daniels was the perpetrator of the crime.
Case 1:20-cv-01692-SB Document 1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 14 of 26 PageID #: 14
15
83. The Delaware Attorney General moved to dismiss Mr. Daniels’ Indictment in part
because of the misleading and scientifically erroneous testimony provided by Special Agent Malone
at his trial.
84. A July 2014 report by the United States Department of Justice Office of the
Inspector General reveals that Special Agent Malone’s actions in Mr. Daniels’ case were not an
anomaly.4 The report explains that “Malone’s faulty analysis and scientifically unsupportable
testimony contributed to the conviction of an innocent defendant (Gates), who was exonerated 27
years later, and the reversal of at least five other defendants’ convictions because of Malone’s
unreliable analysis and testimony.”
2. Mr. Daniels presented strong evidence in support of his alibi.
85. At trial, Mr. Daniels presented strong evidence in support of his alibi—that he was
playing basketball at the time of the rape.
86. He, along with two of his friends and a supervisor at the Latin American Community
Center, testified to the facts set forth above regarding Mr. Daniels playing basketball at the Center in
the late afternoon and early evening on the day of G.S.’s rape. He also presented the sign-in sheet
for the Center for that afternoon, on which he was listed under his nickname, “Fudd.”
87. Mr. Daniels, his mother, and two family friends all testified that when he was not
playing basketball in the late afternoon and early evening of January 15, Mr. Daniels was assisting his
mother by carrying her bowling ball to a neighbor’s home on North Harrison Street.
88. However, Mr. Daniels’ strong alibi evidence could not overcome G.S.’s identification
(which resulted from police suggestion), K.C.’s implication of Mr. Daniels (which resulted from
police coercion), the false testimony of Special Agent Malone, and the withholding of the
exculpatory fingerprint report.
4 Available at https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2014/e1404.pdf.
Case 1:20-cv-01692-SB Document 1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 15 of 26 PageID #: 15

3. The coerced testimony by K.C., suggested testimony by G.S., and false
and exaggerated testimony by Special Agent Malone, together with the
concealment of the negative fingerprint evidence, resulted in a
wrongful conviction.
89. The strong alibi testimony demonstrating that Mr. Daniels could not have been
present at the alleged rape was not enough to overcome the testimony against Mr. Daniels by G.S.
and K.C.—the result of suggestion and coercion, respectively—as well as misleading and invalid
testimony from Special Agent Malone. Mr. Daniels was also precluded from bolstering his alibi
testimony with the exculpatory fingerprint evidence, as that evidence had been suppressed.
90. On May 22, 1980, Mr. Daniels was convicted of first-degree rape.
91. On July 11, 1980, he was sentenced to life in prison.
H. A 39-year fight for freedom.
92. Mr. Daniels never wavered in protesting his innocence. From the days after the rape,
continuing through trial, at sentencing, in parole hearings, and during his decades-long wrongful
incarceration, Mr. Daniels never gave up.
93. Mr. Daniels’ conviction was affirmed on appeal.
94. Mr. Daniels repeatedly challenged his convictions in post-conviction proceedings.
For decades, courts rejected his efforts.
95. Eventually, after more than three decades of wrongful incarceration, Mr. Daniels
received the exculpatory FBI Fingerprint Report pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request.
After providing that report to the parole board, Mr. Daniels was released on parole on or about
August 26, 2015.
96. There were two conditions of Mr. Daniels’ parole. First, he had to obtain and
maintain employment. Second, he had to complete a sex offender program. In order to receive
credit for the program, however, he had to admit guilt.
Case 1:20-cv-01692-SB Document 1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 16 of 26 PageID #: 16
17
97. While Mr. Daniels was able to obtain a job, he was unable to maintain it because a
representative from the Delaware State Police called his manager and informed him that Mr. Daniels
was a convicted sex offender, resulting in the loss of his job.
98. Because Mr. Daniels maintained his innocence, he refused to admit his guilt, and
therefore did not receive credit for the sex offender program.
99. As a result of the termination of his job and his refusal to admit guilt, he was
sentenced back to prison for three years on or about July 6, 2016.
100. On November 30, 2018, based on Special Agent Malone’s misrepresentations as to
the hair evidence and the discovery that Mr. Daniels never attended school with K.C., the State of
Delaware requested the dismissal of Mr. Daniels’ Indictment.
101. On December 12, 2018, the Superior Court of the State of Delaware granted the
State’s Motion to Dismiss the Indictment and consented to the State entering a post-trial nolle
prosequi in the case.
102. That day, for the first time in 14,209 days, Mr. Daniels was truly free.
I. The Wilmington Police Department failed to establish, enforce, and/or provide
training on policies, practices, or protocols, leading to Mr. Daniels’ wrongful
(and extended) conviction.
103. The WPD detectives’ misconduct, including the coercive and suggestive tactics used
with minors G.S. and K.C., did not occur in a vacuum. The misconduct was the direct result of
WPD’s failure to establish, enforce, and/or provide training on policies, practices, or protocols
concerning the interviewing of minor witnesses to a rape.
104. This failure, which led, at least in part, to Mr. Daniels’ wrongful conviction was
compounded by WPD’s failure to establish, enforce, and/or provide training on policies, practices,
or protocols concerning the preservation of exculpatory evidence.
Case 1:20-cv-01692-SB Document 1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 17 of 26 PageID #: 17
18
105. According to a WPD Evidence Destruction Report, any evidence held by the WPD
was destroyed in 1983, just three years after Mr. Daniels’ wrongful conviction.
J. Mr. Daniels’ damages.
106. Defendants’ misconduct robbed Mr. Daniels of the best years of his life. Only after
decades, as a man in his fifties, did he regain the freedom that had been stolen from him at age 18.
107. Mr. Daniels spent almost 39 years—over two-thirds of his life—caged in Delaware
prisons.
108. Incarcerated in adult prisons shortly after entering adulthood, Mr. Daniels suffered
immense physical and emotional pain throughout his imprisonment.
109. He awoke each day to the torture of being trapped inside a small cell for a rape he
did not commit.
110. Mr. Daniels encountered and experienced the violence and degradation inherent to
prison life.
111. While incarcerated in State facilities, Mr. Daniels missed meaningful life events: the
ability to share holidays, birthdays, weddings, and funerals with loved ones; the opportunity to find
meaningful work; the chance to care for and raise children; the opportunity to be present with
friends and family in moments both mundane and profound; the occasion to transform laughter and
love into cherished memories; and the fundamental freedom to lead a life of one’s own choosing.
112. Mr. Daniels suffered tremendous damage, including physical injuries and severe
emotional trauma, and he continues to suffer emotional trauma, all of which were caused by
Defendants’ misconduct.
113. Mr. Daniels’ injuries and damages were foreseeable to Defendants at the time of
their acts and omissions.
Case 1:20-cv-01692-SB Document 1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 18 of 26 PageID #: 18
19
114. All the acts and omissions committed by Defendants were done intentionally,
unlawfully, wantonly, recklessly, negligently, and/or in bad faith.
FEDERAL CLAIMS
Count I – 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Violation of Due Process (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments)
Fabrication of Evidence
(Against Defendant Saggione and John Does 1-10)
115. Each foregoing paragraph is incorporated as if restated fully herein.
116. In the manner described above, by their conduct and under the color of state law,
Detective Saggione and certain John Does 1-10 fabricated evidence against Mr. Daniels.
117. Detective Saggione and certain John Does 1-10 performed the above-described acts
in bad faith and under color of state law, deliberately, and recklessly without regard for Mr. Daniels’
clearly established constitutional rights and innocence. No reasonable officer in 1980 would have
believed this conduct was lawful.
118. As a direct and proximate result of fabrication of evidence by Detective Saggione
and John Does 1-10, including fabrication of witness testimony, Mr. Daniels suffered injuries,
including but not limited to loss of liberty, physical injury, and emotional distress, and he continues
to suffer emotional distress.
Count II – 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Violation of Due Process (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments)
Failure to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence
(Against Defendant Saggione and John Does 1-10)
119. Each foregoing paragraph is incorporated as if restated fully herein.
120. In the manner described above, by their conduct and under color of state law,
Detective Saggione and certain John Does 1-10 deprived Mr. Daniels of his constitutional rights to
be free from deprivation of liberty without due process of law. Detective Saggione, and in
conspiracy with others, deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence. In doing so, Detective Saggione
Case 1:20-cv-01692-SB Document 1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 19 of 26 PageID #: 19
20
and John Does 1-10 violated their clearly established duty to report to prosecutors all exculpatory
materials. No reasonable officer in 1980 would have believed this conduct was lawful.
121. Absent misconduct by Detective Saggione and certain John Does 1-10, Mr. Daniels
would not have been convicted. The misconduct of Detective Saggione and certain John Does 1-10
directly led to the unjust and wrongful criminal conviction of Mr. Daniels and his continuing
wrongful imprisonment. Detective Saggione and certain John Does 1-10 thus denied him his
constitutional rights to be free from deprivation of liberty without due process of law in violation of
the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution.
122. As a direct and proximate result of this violation of his constitutional rights to be
free from deprivation of liberty without due process of law, Mr. Daniels suffered injuries, including
but not limited to the loss of liberty, physical injury, and emotional distress, and he continues to
suffer emotional distress.
Count III – 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Supervisory Liability
(Against Defendant Saggione)
123. Each foregoing paragraph is incorporated as if restated fully herein.
124. Detective Saggione was both personally involved in the investigation of Mr. Daniels
(including the January 16, 1980, interview of K.C.) and directly supervised the investigation by the
investigative team, including Detective Esham and certain John Does 1-10.
125. Detective Esham and certain John Does 1-10 acted with impunity in an environment
in which they were not adequately supervised by Detective Saggione. Detective Saggione knew, or
should have known, that Detective Esham and certain John Does 1-10 were engaging in the
unconstitutional conduct described above in the investigation of G.S.’s rape. Detective Saggione had
Case 1:20-cv-01692-SB Document 1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 20 of 26 PageID #: 20
21
the power to discipline Detective Esham and certain John Does 1-10 or take other action to prevent
these abuses of power but failed to do so.
126. Detective Saggione acted recklessly and intentionally to Mr. Daniels’ constitutional
rights by failing to adequately supervise Detective Esham and certain John Does 1-10, thereby
allowing and causing them to deprive Mr. Daniels of his clearly established constitutional rights,
including his rights to be free from deprivation of liberty without due process of law.
127. The reckless and deliberately indifferent conduct of Detective Saggione violated his
clearly established duty, in 1980, to supervise, and no reasonable police supervisor in 1980 would
have believed that reckless supervision in the face of actual or constructive notice of misconduct by
their subordinate officer was lawful.
128. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Saggione’s acts and omissions, Mr.
Daniels suffered injuries, including but not limited to loss of liberty, physical injury, and severe
emotional distress, and he continues to suffer emotional distress.
Count IV – 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Monell Claim (Fourteenth Amendment)
(Against the City of Wilmington)
129. Each foregoing paragraph is incorporated as if restated fully herein.
130. The Wilmington Police Department, as an entity of the City of Wilmington, failed to
properly train, supervise and/or discipline Detective Saggione, Detective Esham, John Does 1-10,
and other employees with regard to proper police investigative practices, including:
a. Police responsibility to initiate prosecutions only upon a finding of probable
cause;
b. Police responsibility not to fabricate evidence against a criminal suspect;
c. Police responsibility to disclose to the defense exculpatory evidence; and
d. Police responsibility not to destroy exculpatory evidence.
Case 1:20-cv-01692-SB Document 1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 21 of 26 PageID #: 21
22
131. As a direct and proximate result of the WPD’s actions, Mr. Daniels’ constitutional
rights were violated and he suffered injuries, including but not limited to loss of liberty, physical
injury, and severe emotional distress, and he continues to suffer emotional distress.
Count V – Federal Tort Claims Act
Misrepresentation
(Against the United States of America)
132. Each of the foregoing paragraphs is incorporated as if restated fully herein.
133. Special Agent Malone, as the ostensible hair and fiber expert at trial, owed a duty to
Mr. Daniels and the court to provide valid evidence, including any exculpatory evidence. He also
owed a duty to Mr. Daniels to tell the truth when he testified.
134. In describing himself as a 10-year veteran of the FBI with a Master of Science degree
in biology and over six years of experience in microscopic analysis of hairs and fibers, Special Agent
Malone induced Mr. Daniels and the court into relying on him to provide valid evidence and truthful
testimony. Mr. Daniels did not learn until decades later that Special Agent Malone’s testimony was
scientifically erroneous, false, and exaggerated.
135. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken intentionally, willfully, and
with reckless indifference to the rights of others.
136. As a direct and proximate result of Special Agent Malone’s actions, Mr. Daniels’
constitutional rights were violated and he suffered injuries, including but not limited to loss of
liberty, physical injury, and severe emotional distress, and he continues to suffer emotional distress.
137. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the United States of America is liable for these
actions.
Case 1:20-cv-01692-SB Document 1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 22 of 26 PageID #: 22
23
Count VI – Federal Tort Claims Act
Negligence
(Against the United States of America)
138. Each of the foregoing paragraphs is incorporated as if restated fully herein.
139. Special Agent Malone owed a duty of care to Mr. Daniels. That duty was to provide
valid and truthful evidence, as well as exculpatory and impeachment evidence, regarding Mr. Daniels
and the evidence against Mr. Daniels, and not to fabricate evidence. His actions as described above
violated that duty of care and were a direct and proximate cause and a substantial factor in Mr.
Daniels’ injuries as described above.
140. Special Agent Malone’s actions constituted the tort of negligence under the laws of
Delaware.
141. As a direct and proximate result of this negligence, Mr. Daniels suffered and
continues to suffer injuries as set forth above, including physical injury and emotional distress, and
he continues to suffer emotional distress
142. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the United States of America is liable for these
actions.
Count VII – Federal Tort Claims Act
Abuse of Process
(Against the United States of America)
143. Each of the foregoing paragraphs is incorporated as if restated fully herein.
144. At trial, Special Agent Malone testified regarding scientific conclusions knowing that
they were invalid and that they would influence the judicial proceedings. His actions were not proper
in the regular conduct of legal proceedings.
145. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken intentionally, willfully, and
with reckless indifference to the rights of others.
Case 1:20-cv-01692-SB Document 1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 23 of 26 PageID #: 23
24
146. As a direct and proximate result of this misconduct, Mr. Daniels suffered and
continues to suffer injuries as set forth above, including physical injury and emotional distress, and
he continues to suffer emotional distress.
147. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, defendant United States of America is liable for
these actions.
STATE LAW CLAIM
Count VIII
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
(Against Defendants Saggione, John Does 1-10, and Michael P. Malone)
148. Each of the foregoing paragraphs is incorporated as if restated fully herein.
149. The acts and conduct of Defendants Saggione, John Does 1-10, and Malone as set
forth above were extreme and outrageous. Their actions were rooted in an abuse of power or
authority, and they were undertaken with intent to cause, or were in reckless disregard of the
probability that their conduct would cause, severe emotional distress to Mr. Daniels, as is more fully
alleged above.
150. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants Saggione, John Does
1-10, and Malone, Mr. Daniels suffered and continues to suffer physical injury and severe emotional
distress.
Demand for Damages
Plaintiff Elmer Daniels requests that this Court enter judgment in his favor and against the
United States of America, Michael P. Malone, City of Wilmington, Philip Saggione III, and John
Does 1-10 and award him:
1. Compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs against all Defendants, jointly and
severally;
2. Punitive damages against Defendant Saggione and John Does 1-10; and
Case 1:20-cv-01692-SB Document 1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 24 of 26 PageID #: 24
25
3. Any and all other relief this Court deems appropriate.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff Elmer Daniels demands a trial by jury pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b) on all triable
issues of fact.

Outcome: Pending

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: