Bradley County, its former sheriff and two county detectives named in a 10-count federal lawsuit accusing them of civil rights violations, coercion and fabricating evidence, deny wrongdoing in a 40-page answer filed in U.S. District Court in Chattanooga.
The 36-page lawsuit, filed Dec. 9 by Samuel Scott Minton, whose convictions were vacated in January 2025 after spending more than 30 years in prison, names Bradley County, former Bradley County Sheriff Dan Gilley and former detectives Anthony Benefield and William Burtt. Benefield has since died, and his estate is named in an amended complaint. Minton is represented by Chattanooga attorneys Joseph Alan Jackson II and Katelyn Elizabeth Murdock and New York attorneys David Lebowitz and Alanna Kaufman.
Minton, convicted in a Bradley County jury trial in 1994, spent his 20s, 30s and 40s behind bars and was denied normal relationships with his family, the ability to find employment and a chance to find a companion, according to the lawsuit. The suit does not seek a specific amount, but does ask for compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined in court. Minton also seeks prejudgment interest, attorney fees and court costs.
(READ MORE: Angel Bumpass has murder case dismissed by Hamilton County judge)
In his suit, Minton alleges the county and its officers violated his rights under the Fourth, Fifth and 14th amendments in the investigation, indictment and conviction stemming from an Oct. 31, 1993, incident in which a now-deceased Cleveland woman, 49 at the time of investigation, was brutally raped, repeatedly burned with a cigar or cigarette and shot in the leg with a .22 caliber pistol. A man and a woman, who were charged separately, were present during the crime.
Minton confessed to the crime on Nov. 2, 1993, without an attorney present, the lawsuit claims, adding many of his statements in the confession were actually made by a detective. The suit describes Minton at the time he was charged as a “vulnerable and functionally illiterate 20-year-old man with an intellectual disability.”
Minton contended he had an alibi.
“At the time of the alleged incident, Mr. Minton was an hour away from the purported crime scene, running errands and working on fixing his car,” the suit said. “His ironclad alibi was corroborated by time-stamped receipts and 18 alibi witnesses who reported seeing him that morning.”
Minton’s suit contends he was baselessly identified as a suspect, coerced by detectives into providing a false confession while feeding him facts about the allegations in the incident. The suit claims evidence was fabricated, the alibi witnesses were ignored and a lack of basic investigation, such as dusting for fingerprints at the crime scene, ultimately resulted in Minton’s conviction and incarceration.
ANSWER
In the answer filed by Chattanooga attorney B. Thomas Hickey Jr. and Bradley County Attorney Crystal Freiberg, the defendants deny Minton’s civil rights were violated or that he had an alibi of being an hour away when the crime was committed.
The defendants deny feeding facts from the incident to Minton while he provided a confession without an attorney present, according to the answer. They also deny Minton’s claims that procedures were rigged to produce a positive identification of him as the perpetrator after the victim was unable to identify him in a photo lineup.
In the 17-point answer filed April 9, the defendants contend the statute of limitations bars some or all of Minton’s claims, and the defendants enjoy qualified, good-faith and common-law immunity against claims in exercising their authority. The defendants also contend immunity under state law.
(READ MORE: Bradley County reaches out-of-court agreement in jail-related excessive force lawsuit)
The suit makes claims and allegations against other parties for whom the defendants are not liable and the defendants are not liable or responsible, including actions taken during Minton’s criminal trial, the answer said. The defendants did not act with malice or deliberate indifference in Minton’s prosecution.
The defendants’ actions were “reasonable, taken in good faith and for legitimate purposes,” the answer said. Minton’s prosecution stemmed from charges brought after probable cause was determined by a grand jury, and any failures in his defense at trial fall on his legal counsel.
FREED
In December 2024, a Hamilton County Criminal Court granted a petition for post-conviction relief, and the convictions were vacated in January, after which Bradley County District Attorney Stephen Hatchett said he respected Hamilton County Criminal Court Judge Amanda Dunn’s ruling but didn’t agree with it.
(SIGN UP: Get breaking news in your inbox as it happens by going to timesfreepress.com/breaking)
“We are dealing with a case that is unfortunately decades past, and the person that said they were a victim of a crime is not here to say anything,” Hatchett said in January. “I don’t think the word exoneration is necessarily accurate.”
Dunn vacated the convictions following days of testimony in an evidentiary hearing, concluding there was new, clear and convincing scientific evidence of Minton’s innocence, the suit said. During the hearing, experts testified about false confessions and flawed eyewitness identifications.
The next step in the case, according to the docket, is an order requiring both sides to consider the possibility of allowing a magistrate judge to hear the case. The order handed down by U.S. District Judge Travis R. McDonough requires a response to be filed within 45 days, or by about May 24.
Contact Southeast Tennessee reporter Ben Benton at bbenton@timesfreepress.com or 423-757-6569.