The attorney for a motorist accused of hitting and killing a Chattanooga Police Department officer claims police are withholding evidence that includes body camera footage in which other officers are heard talking about the possibility of a second vehicle striking Officer Nicholas Galinger.
Ben McGowan, attorney for accused driver for Janet Hinds, made the claims in a motion filed Monday.
Galinger, 38, was struck by a vehicle while he was inspecting an overflowing manhole in the 2900 block of Hamill Road just after 11 p.m. on Feb. 23, 2019. The force of the impact knocked him into the windshield, over the roof and about 160 feet down the road, according to investigators. The driver fled the scene.
Hinds, 55, turned herself in to authorities nearly 48 hours later.
In a previous court hearing, McGowan claimed police were withholding evidence. Last week, he told Hamilton County Criminal Court Judge Don Poole that, based on the 105 body camera videos he received through the discovery process, there was an initial belief from officers at the scene that a second vehicle ran over Galinger while he was on the ground.
In a statement Monday evening, Chattanooga police Chief David Roddy stated his officers have “turned over all evidence and reports in this case to the Hamilton County District Attorney’s Office.”
“Since Attorney McGowan filed this motion in court, we prefer it to reach conclusion in court rather than in the media,” Roddy added.
Roddy refuted McGowan’s accusations after the court hearing last week as well.
“Mr. McGowan himself clearly stated in open court, a second car ‘allegedly’ ran over Officer Nicholas Galinger after he was struck by Janet Hinds,” Roddy said at the time. “The key word in McGowan’s own statement is ‘allegedly.’
“CPD is unable to provide non-existent evidence or information on something that ‘allegedly’ is believed by attorney McGowan to have occurred. The onus here is on attorney McGowan to provide the driver or evidence that this second vehicle exists.”
In Monday’s motion, McGowan details his reason for believing that evidence could be missing.
His motion claims a couple in a second vehicle was stopped shortly after Galinger was hit.
Galinger was new to the police force and was therefore working with a field training officer the night he died. McGowan claims the training officer can be heard on body camera footage saying this of the second car: “I think, this car cannot … leave, ’cause I think they ran over him as well” and “I was trying to get my car to block the road another car slipped by and I think hit him again [sic].”
Two other unidentified officers – one of whom apparently attempted life-saving procedures – told another officer of the second car, according to the motion.
“Two [f——] cars ran him over,” the officer says.
“Two?” the second officer responds.
“Two cars ran him over. The last one was a couple. And they stopped,” the first officer clarifies, according to the motion.
The alleged second vehicle reportedly can be seen passing field training officer Jarrod Justice, who then shouts at it to stop, according to the motion. But the brake lights of the second car don’t appear to turn on, and it’s allegedly traveling “in the same lane directly toward where Officer Galinger is lying on the wet pavement.”
Another body camera video shows an officer speaking to an unidentified female motorist, but that officer’s body camera footage or written report was not released, McGowan claims.
Because Chattanooga police didn’t turn over any information relating to the couple in the second vehicle that allegedly was stopped, Hinds “has no means to assess the accuracy of what Justice believed he witnessed,” McGowan argues.
“The defense is obligated to seek information that might better reveal exactly what occurred in the [incident] and its aftermath,” McGowan continues. “Naturally, the police should have the same interest.”
If the evidence is, in fact, missing, that’s a big deal, McGowan argues. That’s because evidence of Galinger being hit by a second vehicle could explain the damage to his body. Or shed light on the ability of other drivers to see his clothing in the dark. Or it could affect how far his body traveled, which could affect investigators’ calculations of how fast Hinds was traveling.
“While it is certainly possible, even likely, the [training officer] was simply mistaken or understandably confused in those terrible moments, that possibility does nothing to account for why the information has not been turned over, or for the extraordinary effort by the Chattanooga police chief to publicly attack the defense for even raising questions about it,” McGowan states.
He is asking for four groups of evidence:
– Written reports, interviews or written statements of witness interviews.
– Camera footage from properties along Hamill Road.
– Any digital scans or crash reconstruction materials.
– Any interview reports from witness Christopher Dahl, who claims to have taken a photo of the overflowing manhole and a fallen warning sign just minutes prior to the crash and sent it to police. An email from investigators to Dahl confirms they received the photos, but they were not included in the case file, McGowan claims.
Police say Hinds was driving at a “very high speed in poor weather conditions.” And she did not stay in her lane and “failed to observe and react to signs posted by Public Works covering exposed manhole covers,” according to police.
She faces 10 criminal charges, including vehicular homicide by intoxication, driving under the influence, leaving the scene of an accident with death, reckless driving, failure to maintain lane and failure to render aid.
The case is expected to go to trial on Sept. 29. The trial could be moved to a different county or an out-of-town jury could be brought in if an impartial jury cannot be seated.
Contact Rosana Hughes at rhughes@timesfreepress.com or 423-757-6327 with tips or story ideas. Follow her on Twitter @Hughes Rosana.