Suit Filed Alleging Mansfield Police Officer Fabricated Evidence In Murder Case


Chis Hatch


Here is the full text, and a link to the latest Shreveport Times coverage by Vicki Wellborn of the suit filed on behalf of our client Terrence Glaster, who was falsely accused of murder by a Mansfield Police officer. Mr. Glaster is represented by Senior Associate Chris Hatch.

Mansfield officer accused of fabricating evidence in murder probe


A Mansfield man twice-arrested for a homicide has filed suit in federal court, claiming the arresting officer fabricated evidence and lied during court proceeding.


Terrance Glaster states as a result of his false arrest and incarceration he’s suffered damage to his reputation, loss of income and incurred attorney fees and expenses. He’s seeking unspecified monetary compensation for the damages he said he endured with violations of his constitution, civil and statutory rights.


Attorney Christopher Hatch filed the lawsuit late Friday, naming the city of Mansfield, Mansfield Police Department, Police Chief Gary Hobbs and Sgt. Billy Locke as defendants. Hobbs and Locke are named individually and in their official capacities.


“At this time, I have not been served,” Mayor Curtis McCoy said of the lawsuit. “Through conversation, I have heard about it, but no one has served papers at City Hall so … I can’t comment on it at this time.”


Glaster, 31, has been charged on two separate occasions with the Dec. 24, 2012 shooting death of LaDerrick Hadnott, 29, of Mansfield. Hadnott was shot in the head in a house on Topeka Street he shared with a roommate.


Glaster was first arrested Jan. 25, 2013 and charged in Hadnott’s murder. The charge was dropped after a grand jury on Feb. 13, 2013 declined to indict him.


His second arrest was on March 21, 2013. Glaster was jailed until May 28, when he was released on a $200,000 bond. On Nov. 14, the DeSoto District Attorney’s office dismissed the second-degree murder charge against Glaster.


No arrest has been made in Hadnott’s murder. Hadnott’s death was the first homicide investigation for Locke. Glaster accuses the sergeant of not conducting a thorough forensic investigation nor seeking assistance from another agency with more investigative resources.


Glaster provided Locke with an alibi and the names and contact numbers for those he was with the night Hadnott was killed. Locke did not follow up on Glaster’s information, nor did he take action on information supplied by others, including a known police informant, who identified another man involved in a stabbing incident with Hadnott 23 days prior to his death, as a suspect, the lawsuit states.


The informant, identified in the lawsuit as Anthony Jackson, told Locke he was less than 10 feet from Hadnott’s house when he saw the shooter run out with a “black nine millimeter.” Jackson gave other, sometimes conflicting, statements.


“Despite the patent unreliability of Jackson’s uncorroborated statement, and despite the fact that Jackson actually implicated an entirely different person for the shooting (the man who Hadnott had stabbed), plaintiff was arrested and charged with the murder of Hadnott on January 25, 2013, based entirely on Jackson’s statement,” the lawsuit states.


Ten days after Glaster was first released from custody, a police informant reportedly contacted Locke to say he could get a confession from Glaster. In Locke’s written report he states he met with the informant, gave him a recording device, followed him to a house on Grove Street where Glaster was standing in the yard and watched Glaster get into the informant’s vehicle. Locke “loosened surveillance” and met with the informant 30 minutes later to retrieve the recording.


Defense witnesses who listened to the recording identified Makeus Washington, a felon with pending criminal charges as the informant. The two-minute recording consists of a male entering Washington’s vehicle, “briefly and spontaneously” admitting to Hadnott’s murder then exiting.


“The male who is purported to have admitted to the shooting on the recording is not Terrance Glaster,” the lawsuits states.


The “faked” recording was discussed during an in-chambers conference involving District Judge Charles Adams and an assistant district attorney. And during a bench conference about Glaster’s bond reduction, Lock also repeatedly denied identifying Washington to the defense counsel. However, a recording of the conversation between Locke and the attorney was given to the judge and district attorney.


“Sgt. Locke knowingly and maliciously misled both the assistant district attorney and the court regarding his disclosure of the identity of the informant in order to preserve the strength of his case against Glaster,” the lawsuit states.


Certified cellular telephone records obtained by defense counsel, via subpoena from Washington’s cell phone provider, show a multitude of calls between Washington and Locke during the same date and time periods referenced in Locke’s report. The same cellular telephone records reveal that there were no calls or text messages between Washington’s phone and any phone associated with or used by Glaster on the day Locke said the recording was made.


During a preliminary examination on July 17, Locke admitted he did not actually follow the informant all the way to the Grove Street house where Glaster was supposedly standing. Instead, he stopped at an intersection 1,000 feet away. Additionally, Locke admitted he only saw someone he thought “resembled” Glaster, but he did not know whether Glaster was actually the man who was standing in front of the house and got into Washington’s vehicle.


The grand jury indictment against Glaster was based on Locke’s “false testimony,” the lawsuit states. Because of Locke’s conduct, Glaster was deprived of his constitutional rights against unlawful imprisonment, false arrest and malicious prosecution, the document further states. Also noted is the potential of Glaster to have been convicted and jailed for life for a crime based on “false evidence.”


United States District Court, Shreveport - 2

United States District Court, Shreveport

The lawsuit accuses the city, police department, Hobbs and Locke of providing inadequate resources in homicide investigations, inadequate training and supervision, inadequate training of officers in the training and use of paid informants, inadequate training of officers on their constitutional duty to testify truthfully without personal malice and failing to take disciplinary action against officers who are known to have engaged in misconduct.

Google Find us on Google+