Date of Offense
Offense(s)
Supporting Document(s)
Statement
The following points summarize the allegations, findings, and potential Brady/Giglio implications involving Deputy Kandy Fatheree of the Summit County Sheriff’s Office:
Background and Nature of Investigation
The investigation commenced in response to reported inconsistencies in Deputy Fatheree’s statements regarding workplace incidents, alleged injuries, and her interactions with other deputies (including Deputy Bennett and Deputy Walsh).
The focus is on alleged contradictory accounts given by Deputy Fatheree about the stacking of meal trays on a jail food cart (occurring on or about 08/23/2000), as well as her workers’ compensation claims.
Additional Details
Notarized Application (10/19/1994)
Deputy Fatheree submitted a notarized statement during her application process to the Summit County Sheriff’s Office, indicating no known medical issues that would affect her ability to perform her duties. Investigators later compared this with documentation suggesting potential undisclosed back injuries or other medical conditions.
Witness Statements
Several deputies (e.g., Deputy Lemon, Deputy Newman) and a prosecutor (referred to in the report as “Prosecutor Cluse”) provided statements regarding the alleged tray-stacking incident, the weight of the cart, and the existence (or non-existence) of photographs taken by Deputy Fatheree.
Conflicting narratives arose over whether Deputy Fatheree possessed photographs of purported misconduct by another deputy or if such photographs were later destroyed or never existed in the manner she described.
Investigative Findings
The final section of the newly provided pages reiterates two key issues: (1) whether the tray-stacking incident actually occurred as Deputy Fatheree described and (2) whether Deputy Fatheree provided untruthful or misleading information to the Summit County Sheriff’s Office about her medical background and the alleged photographs.
These discrepancies, if proven to involve deliberate falsehoods, could bear on Deputy Fatheree’s credibility and raise potential Brady/Giglio concerns (i.e., the requirement to disclose material that impeaches a law enforcement officer’s truthfulness).
Potential Brady/Giglio Implications
Brady v. Maryland (373 U.S. 83) and Giglio v. United States (405 U.S. 150) require that evidence affecting the credibility of a law enforcement witness be disclosed to defense counsel.
The report’s findings, which document possible inconsistencies or false statements by Deputy Fatheree, could necessitate disclosure in any criminal cases where her testimony is material.
Status of the Investigation
The report concludes by indicating that the information gathered is being forwarded to the Summit County Sheriff’s Office administration for review and possible action.
No definitive conclusion regarding Deputy Fatheree’s culpability appears in the newly provided pages; however, the report notes that if her statements were deemed knowingly false, they would warrant administrative or disciplinary measures and might result in Brady listing.
The US Citizen Reporters are a group of public and private defense advocates that scour the internet for documented incidents of police misconduct that have eluded accountability.
