PHOENIX (AP) - A federal judge has dismissed a wrongful conviction lawsuit filed by an Arizona woman who spent 22 years on death row in her son’s killing before her conviction was thrown out, concluding her repeated destruction of records in the civil case prevents the true facts from emerging.
In a blistering ruling Friday, Judge Roslyn Silver said the records destroyed by Debra Milke would have addressed her case’s core issue: What happened when Milke was interviewed by a Phoenix detective who claimed she confessed to the 1989 killing of her 4-year-old son Christopher. Milke, whose comments to the detective weren’t recorded, vigorously denied that she confessed to the killing.
The judge said Milke destroyed boxes of documents accumulated during her prison time and additional boxes of records that were kept at her mother’s home in Germany. Silver said there’s a reasonable possibility that Milke destroyed crucial documents, such as a journal that Milke wrote while incarcerated. “Those documents, written relatively shortly after the crucial events, obviously would be useful for supporting or discrediting Milke’s current version of events,” Silver wrote. “Their loss prevents this case from ‘proceeding on the true facts.’”
Under the ruling, Milke is barred from refiling her lawsuit. Elizabeth Wang, one of Milke’s attorneys, said her client will appeal the ruling, calling the decision erroneous.
Seven years ago, a federal appeals court threw out Milke’s conviction, ruling prosecutors failed to disclose a history of misconduct by now-retired Phoenix police Detective Armando Saldate, including four other criminal cases in which courts concluded he lied.
As a result, the purported confession obtained by the detective was called into question. Milke maintains that she was innocent and claims the detective fabricated the confession, an allegation denied by Saldate.
The courts later barred prosecutors from retrying Milke. Silver has previously said that the appeals court that cast doubt about the confession never concluded that Milke was innocent.
Authorities said Milke dressed her son in his favorite outfit and told him he was going to see Santa Claus at a mall in December 1989. He was then taken into the desert by two men and shot in the back of the head.
Milke had been convicted of ordering Christopher’s death, while James Lynn Styers, Milke’s roommate, and his friend Roger Mark Scott remain on death row for carrying out the killing. Authorities say Milke’s motive was that she did not want the child anymore and did not want him to live with his father.
In addition to criticizing Milke for destroying documents when she anticipated filing a lawsuit, Silver said Milke concealed evidence in the civil case for years, provided documents belatedly and made baseless claims of attorney-client privilege in a bid to avoid releasing information. By doing so, the judge said Silver shifted the financial burden to the city of Phoenix to try to find documents and caused the civil case to be delayed by three years.
In one instance, Silver wrote that Milke gave misleading deposition testimony in a bid to hide the extent of her contact with a journalist who wrote a book about Milke. Attorneys defending Phoenix said Milke was trying to hide her waivers of attorney-client privilege. The journalist was given 7,000 pages of documents - some of them privileged - from Milke or her attorney, the judge wrote.
Milke’s attorneys argued there was no basis for dismissing the lawsuit, saying the city of Phoenix hid evidence that would have cleared their client and also destroyed Saldate’s personnel and internal affairs files.
“Debra Milke was wrongfully convicted and is completely innocent of the crime of which she was convicted,” Wang said after Friday’s ruling. “The only reason she was convicted was because of the lies told by Armando Saldate. She has a meritorious case and meritorious claims.”
Kathleen Wieneke, an attorney representing the city of Phoenix, and Lori Berke, a lawyer for Saldate, didn’t immediately return a call Friday afternoon seeking comment on the dismissal.
The dismissal of the lawsuit wasn’t the first time Silver concluded Milke had withheld information in the case.
In July 2019, the judge sanctioned Milke over several developments in the information-sharing pretrial phase of her civil case, such as asserting attorney-client privilege on her criminal file when she had already given access to those records to a German citizen who operated her website and social media accounts.
The website operator removed material from - and later shut down - her website at the request of Milke’s attorneys, who said those actions were taken when it looked as though their client’s criminal case was going to be retried and that the material was taken down so prospective jurors wouldn’t read about the case. They said the material from the website was still available on a hard drive and on hundreds of printouts.
Anticipating Milke was unlikely to pay the entire financial sanction, Silver required her to instead deposit “an appropriate amount with the Clerk of Court” to cover a portion legal fees for opposing attorneys. The judge said it was undisputed that at least $150,000 in costs were incurred as a result of Milke’s misconduct, though it’s unclear how much Milke was required to pay and whether she made such a deposit. The judge also had kept open the possibility of dismissing the case if the circumstances merited it.
In her latest ruling, Silver it’s not her task to determine what happened approximately 30 years ago, but rather to treat Milke and the city and its officers as equals who are required to follow the same rules. “Those rules do not allow a party to withhold responsive documents, assert baseless privilege claims, and destroy physical and electronic evidence,” Silver wrote.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.