The defendants in the case involving four indicted Decatur County Sheriff’s Office deputies filed a Motion for Sanctions on March 6, accusing the U.S. Federal Government of failing to comply with the discovery process.
According to the motion, the Government willfully submitted evidence past the discovery deadline on Feb. 27.
The discovery included a letter outlining a report from the National Crime and Information Center on Ronnie Aaron Parrish, who was allegedly beaten by DCSO officers during BikeFest 2012, followed by a cover-up of the events within the Sherriff’s Office.
The motion also included information that was previously sealed from public view, but was made public through the defedants’ Motion for Sanctions.
On March 18, the Government filed a Motion to Seal Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions, stating, “the motion, over the course of 17 pages, repeatedly discusses sealed Orders from the Court, prior sealed submissions by the government, and non-public information concerning investigations conducted by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.”
The motion was sealed on March 24.
In response to his alleged beating and mistreatment by the DCSO, Parrish filed a civil suit against Decatur County, Wiley Griffin III, Wiley Griffin IV, Wendell Cofer, Elizabeth Croley, Robert Wade Umbach and Christopher Kines on Sept. 15, 2014.
Parrish was convicted of felony obstruction with violence and felony attempting to grab a gun off of a law enforcement officer during the alleged fight between him and DCSO deputies at BikeFest 2012. He is currently on felony probation in the State of Georgia because of these actions.
The defendants in the civil suit argued the case is subject to dismissal by filing a Memorandum in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss on Feb. 26, 2015.
Parrish filed another motion on March 23 in opposition of the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
Also filed on March 23 was Parrish’s Motion for Stay of Proceedings, which argued that Parrish’s civil case and the criminal case involve the same subject matter, both involve the same defendants (Griffin IV, Umbach, Croley and Kines) and provided factors that supported an issuance of the stay. One of these factors was a motion for a new criminal trial for Parrish.
“Since trial, newly discovered evidence has come to Parrish’s knowledge such as previously undiscovered witnesses and previously undiscovered written witness statements,” the motion reads.
The motion continues to argue that Parrish did not possess the favorable evidence that is now available, and subsequently deserves a retrial.