amended complaint
Post on 21-Nov-2014
24 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Civil Division Estate of ROBERT E. WONE, by KATHERINE E. WONE, as Personal Representative Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH R. PRICE, VICTOR J. ZABORSKY, and DYLAN M. WARD Defendants.
Civil Action No. 008315-08 The Honorable Brook Hedge Next Court Event: December 15, 2010 Deadline for Discovery Requests
PLAINTIFF’S CONSENT MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Estate of Robert E. Wone, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby
moves pursuant to Superior Court Rule 15(a), with consent of Defendants, for leave to amend its
Complaint. In support of this motion, Plaintiff states:
1. On November 25, 2008, Plaintiff filed its Complaint in this action.
2. On September 27, 2010, Plaintiff obtained written consent from
Defendants’ counsel to amend its Complaint.
3. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully asks that the Court grant its Consent Motion
and enter the attached First Amended Complaint in this action.
FiledD.C. Superior Court10 Sep 29 P06:39Clerk of Court
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Stephen W. Rodger_________
Benjamin J. Razi (brazi@cov.com) D.C. Bar No. 475946 Stephen W. Rodger (srodger@cov.com) D.C. Bar No. 485518 Brett C. Reynolds (breynolds@cov.com) D.C. Bar No. 996100 COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 662-6000
Patrick M. Regan (pregan@reganfirm.com) D.C. Bar No. 336107 REGAN ZAMBRI & LONG, PLLC 1919 M Street, NW, Suite 350 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 463-3030
Dated: September 29, 2010 Counsel for Plaintiff
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 29, 2010, I caused a copy of the foregoing
Plaintiff’s Consent Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to be served via CaseFileXpress on
the following counsel:
Craig D. Roswell Brett A. Buckwalter Heather B. Nelson Niles, Barton, & Wilmer LLP 111 S. Calvert Street, Suite 1400 Baltimore, MD 21202 cdroswell@nilesbarton.com hbnelson@nilesbarton.com babuckwalter@nilesbarton.com Counsel for Defendant Joseph Price David Schertler Robert Spagnoletti Schertler & Onorato LLP 601 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20004 dschertler@schertlerlaw.com rspagnoletti@schertlerlaw.com Counsel for Defendant Dylan M. Ward Frank F. Daily Sean P. Edwards Larissa N. Byers The Law Office of Frank F. Daily, P.A. 11350 McCormick Road Executive Plaza III, Suite 704 Hunt Valley, MD 21031 info@frankdailylaw.com Counsel for Defendant Victor Zaborsky
_________/s/ Stephen W. Rodger___________ Stephen W. Rodger
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Civil Division
Estate of ROBERT E. WONE, by KATHERINE E. WONE, as Personal Representative, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH R. PRICE, VICTOR J. ZABORSKY, and DYLAN M. WARD, Defendants.
Civil Action No. 008315-08 The Honorable Brook Hedge Next Court Event: December 15, 2010 Deadline for Discovery Requests
ORDER
This matter coming before the Court on Plaintiff Estate of Robert E. Wone’s
Consent Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, and in consideration of that Motion, it is by the
Court this __ day of ________, 2010,
ORDERED THAT:
1. The Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is GRANTED.
2. Exhibit A to that Motion shall be filed as Plaintiff Estate of Robert E. Wone’s
First Amended Complaint.
____________________________ JUDGE BROOK HEDGE
Exhibit A
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Civil Division Estate of ROBERT E. WONE, by KATHERINE E. WONE, as Personal Representative, 10415 Graystone Court Oakton, VA 22124, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH R. PRICE, 1509 Swann Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20009 (Last known address), VICTOR ZABORSKY, 1509 Swann Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20009 (Last known address), and DYLAN WARD, 550 NE 94th St, Miami Shores, FL 33138 (Last known address), Defendants.
Civil Action No. 008315-08 The Honorable Brook Hedge FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NATURE OF ACTION
1. This is a civil action for damages under the laws of the District of Columbia for
wrongful death, negligence, spoliation of evidence, and conspiracy.
2. This action arises from Defendants’ conduct prior to, during, and following the
murder of Robert E. Wone on August 2, 2006, while he was a guest at Defendants’ home located
at 1509 Swann Street, NW, in Washington, D.C. This lawsuit is based on Defendants’
intentional, reckless, and/or negligent acts that caused the death of Robert Wone, Defendants’
negligent failure to rescue Robert Wone after he was injured, Defendants’ destruction of
evidence of Robert Wone’s murder, and Defendants’ conspiracy to destroy evidence and obstruct
the police investigation into Robert Wone’s murder.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. Jurisdiction is vested in this Court pursuant to D.C. Code § 11-921 (1981 ed. as
amended). Jurisdiction is also vested pursuant to the Survival Act, D.C. Code § 12-101.
4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants pursuant to D.C. Code
§§ 13-422 and 13-423(a)(3).
5. Venue in this Court is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions
giving rise to this action occurred in the District of Columbia.
PARTIES
A. Plaintiff
6. Plaintiff Katherine E. Wone is the Personal Representative of the estate of her
deceased husband, Robert Wone, who was murdered while he was a guest in Defendants’ home.
Katherine Wone is a resident and citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia. She was married to
Robert Wone from June 7, 2003 until his death in August 2006.
7. Robert Wone was, at all relevant times, a resident and citizen of the
Commonwealth of Virginia. Prior to his murder, Robert Wone was a successful lawyer
practicing in the District of Columbia as the General Counsel for Radio Free Asia. He was an
active member of the community who served on the board of several non-profit organizations
and was president-elect of the Asian Pacific American Bar Association. He was a loving and
caring husband to Plaintiff Katherine Wone.
- 2 -
B. Defendants
8. Defendant Joseph Price, an attorney, was until recently a resident and citizen of
the District of Columbia. At the time of Robert Wone’s murder on August 2, 2006, Defendant
Price resided at 1509 Swann Street, NW, in Washington, D.C. Defendant Price and Robert
Wone first met and became friends in the 1990s when they were undergraduate students at the
College of William and Mary.
9. Defendant Victor Zaborsky was until recently a resident and citizen of the District
of Columbia. At the time of Robert Wone’s murder on August 2, 2006, Defendant Zaborsky
resided at 1509 Swann Street, NW, in Washington, D.C.
10. Defendant Dylan Ward is believed to be a resident and citizen of Florida, residing
at 550 NE 94th Street, Miami Shores. At the time of Robert Wone’s murder on August 2, 2006,
Defendant Ward resided at 1509 Swann Street, NW, in Washington, D.C. Defendant Ward’s
bedroom was on the same floor as the guestroom where Robert Wone’s body was discovered.
11. Defendants Price and Zaborsky are domestic partners. Defendants Price and
Ward were involved in a personal, intimate relationship at the time of Robert Wone’s murder.
FACTS
A. Robert Wone’s Murder
12. At approximately 10:30 PM on August 2, 2006, Robert Wone arrived at 1509
Swann Street, NW, as Defendants’ invited guest. Robert Wone had previously made plans with
Defendant Price to spend the night as a guest at Defendants’ home.
13. At 11:49 PM, Defendant Zaborsky called 9-1-1 to report that Robert Wone had
been stabbed. Less than 6 minutes into the 9-1-1 call, two emergency medical service (“EMS”)
workers arrived at the scene and found Robert Wone lying on the pull-out couch in the second-
- 3 -
floor guestroom, with three knife stab wounds in his chest and abdomen. The EMS personnel
detected no pulse or heart activity, and there was no blood coming out of the stab wounds.
14. Robert Wone was taken by paramedics to George Washington University Hospital
where he was officially pronounced dead at 12:24 AM on August 3, 2006.
15. On the night of Robert Wone’s murder, Defendants consistently told EMS
personnel and detectives from the Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”) that they believed
an “intruder” entered the house and assaulted and killed Robert Wone and that none of the three
Defendants knew the identity of the “intruder.”
16. Days after the murder, Plaintiff Katherine Wone and a group of family and friends
gathered at the Wones’ Oakton, Virginia home to mourn the death of Robert Wone. Defendants
Price, Zaborsky, and Ward were present. In response to Plaintiff Katherine Wone’s questions
about how her husband was killed, Defendant Price said that he and Defendants Zaborsky and
Ward did not know how the murder occurred.
17. On August 3, 2006, Dr. Lois Goslinoski, Deputy Medical Examiner of the Office
of Chief Medical Examiner for the District of Columbia, performed an autopsy on Robert
Wone’s body. Her written report identified the cause of death as stab wounds of the torso.
B. The Criminal Proceedings
18. For over two years following Robert Wone’s murder, there were no arrests or
charges in the case.
19. On October 27, 2008, MPD sought and obtained a warrant for Defendant Ward’s
arrest for obstructing justice in connection with the Robert Wone murder investigation. Ward
was arrested in Florida two days later.
20. In its Affidavit filed in support of the request for a warrant for Ward’s arrest (the
“MPD Affidavit”), MPD provided a wealth of new information about the events of August 2,
- 4 -
2006, including with regard to Defendants’ conduct and their cover-up of the murder.
Specifically, the MPD Affidavit explained that:
Robert Wone was restrained, incapacitated, . . . and murdered inside 1509 Swann Street, N.W., on the evening of August 2, 2006. Moreover, there exists overwhelming evidence, far in excess of probable cause, that . . . Price, Zaborsky, and Ward . . . obstructed justice by altering and orchestrating the crime scene, . . . delaying the reporting of the murder to the authorities, and lying to the police about the true circumstances of the murder when interviewed.
21. During the week of November 17, 2008, Defendants Price and Zaborsky turned
themselves in to authorities in Washington, D.C. and were charged with obstructing justice in
connection with the Robert Wone murder investigation.
22. On January 15, 2009, the grand jury returned a three-count superseding
indictment, charging all three Defendants with conspiracy, obstruction, and tampering with
evidence.
23. On June 29, 2010, after a six-week bench trial on the criminal counts, Defendants
were acquitted. However, in finding that Defendants’ guilt could not be established beyond a
reasonable doubt—the highest standard of proof known to the law—the court noted that “[t]he
government has . . . presented powerful evidence to support its claim that Robert Wone’s
murderer was either one of the defendants, or someone known to them who was able to enter
without breaking.” United States v. Price, et al., No. 08-CF1 27068, Slip Op. at 21 (D.C. Sup.
Ct. June 29, 2010). The court then concluded “[i]t is very probable that the government’s theory
is correct, that even if the defendants did not participate in the murder some or all of them knew
enough about the circumstances of it to provide helpful information to law enforcement and have
chosen to withhold that information for reasons of their own.” Id. at 35.
- 5 -
C. Defendants’ Conduct and Their Cover-Up of Robert Wone’s Murder
1. Defendants’ Implausible Explanation of Robert Wone’s Murder
24. Each of the Defendants was interviewed by MPD on the night of the murder. In
all of their statements, Defendants maintained that they were the only people at their home that
night with Robert Wone. According to Defendants’ statements, Robert Wone took a shower and
went to sleep on the pull-out couch located in the second-floor guestroom. Defendants Price and
Zaborsky purportedly went to bed in their third-floor bedroom, while Defendant Ward retired to
his second-floor bedroom and promptly took a “sleeping pill.”
25. All three of the Defendants have claimed that an intruder murdered Robert Wone.
Under Defendants’ version of events, Robert Wone was murdered by an unidentified, unknown
person who scaled the 8-foot security fence behind the residence; entered the house through an
unlocked back door; rummaged through the kitchen, found a knife; walked past numerous items
of value on the first floor, including a laptop computer, a flat screen television, and a cordless
telephone; climbed the sixteen, uncarpeted stairs to the second floor; proceeded past a bedroom
containing a sleeping Defendant Ward; walked into the guestroom on the second floor; walked
around to the other side of the pull-out couch; stabbed Robert Wone three times in the chest and
abdomen; retreated back down the stairs; and then escaped from the house—without taking any
of the valuables in plain view, including Robert Wone’s wallet, Blackberry, or wristwatch; and
without having been seen or heard by any of the Defendants, all of whom were present in the
house the entire time.
26. Defendants’ explanation is inconsistent with the evidence. Upon examination of
the crime scene, MPD concluded that “there were absolutely no signs of forced entry.”
“[N]othing was disturbed within the residence, and there was no property missing from the
residence.” In the criminal trial, the court thus rejected Defendants’ contention that an unknown
- 6 -
“intruder” entered their residence committed the murder, explicitly finding that “the murder of
Robert Wone was not committed by an intruder unknown to the defendants.” United States v.
Price, et al., No. 08-CF1 27068, Slip Op. at 20 (D.C. Sup. Ct. June 29, 2010). “Overall, the
defendants’ story that an intruder committed the offense is incredible beyond a reasonable
doubt.” Id. at 34.
2. Robert Wone was Incapacitated at the Time of his Murder
27. According to Dr. Goslinoski, Robert Wone was unable to move at the time that he
was stabbed. Dr. Goslinoski’s finding is based primarily on:
• the perfect, slit-like nature of Robert Wone’s stab wounds, indicating that Robert Wone was unable to move when each stab wound was inflicted, not even reflexively;
• the absence of defensive wounds on Robert Wone’s body, indicating that Robert Wone was entirely unable to respond to the pain of the wounds being inflicted;
• the wounds were identical in depth and orientation, indicating Robert Wone was not moving at the time all three were inflicted; and
• multiple pre-mortem needle puncture marks to Robert Wone’s body that were not the product of any legitimate medical treatment or intervention.
28. Based on this and the other evidence she reviewed, Dr. Goslinoski concluded that
“Mr. Wone was alive, but incapacitated, at the time the stab wounds were inflicted.”
29. At the criminal trial, Dr. David Fowler, Chief Medical Examiner for the State of
Maryland, testified that, in his experience with more than 1,000 stabbing cases, he has never seen
wounds this precise, uniform, and lacking in damage.
30. Dr. Fowler further testified that Robert Wone would have been alive for minutes
after he was stabbed, and that he would have been conscious and able to move for at least 45
seconds after being stabbed.
- 7 -
3. Defendants’ Delay in Reporting Robert Wone’s Murder
31. There is an unexplained, extended time gap between the stabbing of Robert Wone
and Defendant Zaborsky’s 9-1-1 call.
32. Defendants’ neighbor, William Thomas, heard a scream of “desperation” coming
from Defendants’ guestroom during the Channel 9 News broadcast, which aired between 11:00
and 11:30 PM on August 2, 2006. If this scream was Robert Wone’s, then there was a gap in
time of as little as 19 minutes to as many as 49 minutes between when Robert Wone was
assaulted and the 9-1-1 call. If, as seems more likely, because Robert Wone was incapacitated,
the scream heard by the neighbor was Zaborsky’s upon discovery of Robert Wone’s body, then
Defendants delayed even longer before calling 9-1-1.
33. EMS workers determined when they arrived on the scene that, “[b]ased on a
complete lack of any signs of life, Mr. Wone was dead and appeared to have been dead for some
period of time.” EMS workers reached this conclusion despite the fact that they arrived on the
scene less than six minutes after Defendants called 9-1-1.
34. Defendants’ delay is further demonstrated by Dr. Goslinoski’s observation that
Robert Wone actively digested his own blood for a significant period of time after he had been
stabbed. Dr. Goslinoski found a significant amount of internal bleeding as a result of the stab
wounds, indicating that “Mr. Wone was alive for a considerable period of time after he was
stabbed, as his digestive system continued to operate, forcing blood into his intestine (in other
words, he was digesting his own blood).”
4. Defendants’ Cover-Up and Destruction of Evidence
35. The evidence suggests that, rather than administering aid to Robert Wone or
making a prompt report to authorities, Defendants spent the crucial minutes after the stabbing
coordinating their stories, altering and orchestrating the crime scene, and destroying evidence.
- 8 -
36. Within the first 90 seconds of the 9-1-1 call, Defendant Zaborsky offered: “we
heard . . . we think it was somebody, an intruder in the house, we heard a chime, the door.”
These statements (i.e., the repeated references to “we”) indicate that Defendant Zaborsky had
conferred with Defendant Price and/or Defendant Ward prior to calling 9-1-1.
37. Dr. Goslinoski found that Robert Wone’s stab wounds “damaged major vascular
areas and organ[s] and [would] have resulted in a large quantity of blood flowing out of
Mr. Wone’s body, far in excess of the relatively small spots of blood found on the guestroom
bed.” One of the EMS workers was alarmed because “there was no blood whatsoever on the
victim, on the floor, or anywhere in the [guestroom].”
38. Another EMS first responder saw on Robert Wone’s chest “a very light film of
blood with striation marks as if someone had taken a towel and wiped it down Mr. Wone’s
chest.”
39. During the 9-1-1 call, the operator repeatedly instructed Defendant Zaborsky to
put a dry cloth or towel on Robert Wone’s stab wounds and apply pressure. Zaborsky
responded, “my partner is holding it on there . . . he is applying pressure.” Despite this
representation, no towels consistent with an effort to staunch Robert Wone’s bleeding were
found at the crime scene. Moreover, upon arriving at the scene, EMS found Defendant Price
seated in the guestroom—not applying pressure to Robert Wone’s stab wounds, touching him in
any way, or rendering any assistance to him at all.
40. In addition, a police cadaver dog trained to detect human blood and remains
alerted to the lint trap of a dryer just outside the bathroom by Defendant Ward’s bedroom and to
a drain within the secured courtyard area in the back of the residence. This suggests that “bloody
- 9 -
clothing or items were cleaned off in the backyard stairwell and then placed in the clothes dryer
to dry.”
41. Defendant Price also lied to MPD about the knife recovered from the scene. Price
told MPD that he found the knife lying on Robert Wone’s body. However, on the morning of
August 3, 2006, while waiting for Defendant Ward outside of the police station, Defendant Price
told Defendant Zaborsky and their friend and neighbor, Scott Hixson, that “I had to pull the knife
out of my friend.” A few days after the murder, Defendant Price told a mutual friend of his and
Robert Wone, Tara Ragone, the same thing, telling Ms. Ragone in a telephone conversation that
he had removed the knife from Robert Wone’s chest.
42. In the criminal trial, the court found that “Mr. Price very likely tampered with and
altered the murder weapon, and that he lied about his conduct in this regard to police with
obstructive purpose.” United States v. Price, et al., No. 08-CF1 27068, Slip Op. at 25 (D.C. Sup.
Ct. June 29, 2010); see also id. at 27 (“I find that it is very likely Mr. Price altered or destroyed
evidence at the scene with the specific intent to reduce its value as evidence in the imminent
investigation of the death of Robert Wone.”).
D. The Ongoing Conspiracy
43. Defendants have conspired to thwart the investigation into Robert Wone’s
murder.
44. In further of the conspiracy, one or more of them has (i) destroyed, altered, hid,
and/or rearranged evidence of the murder; (ii) coordinated stories regarding the circumstances
surrounding the murder; (iii) provided false and misleading information to police investigating
the murder; and (iv) provided false and misleading information to persons interested in
identifying those responsible for the crime, including but not limited to Robert Wone’s family
and friends.
- 10 -
45. Defendants’ conspiracy is ongoing.
46. To this day, the grand jury investigation has not resulted in any arrests or
indictments for Robert Wone’s murder.
COUNT ONE: WRONGFUL DEATH
47. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1
through 46 above as if set forth fully herein and asserts that this claim arises under the District of
Columbia Wrongful Death Statute, D.C. Code § 16-2701, et seq.
48. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ wrongful acts and/or negligence directly and
proximately caused the death of Robert Wone, as evidenced by:
a. the fact that Defendants are the only known occupants of 1509 Swann Street, NW, at the time Robert Wone was assaulted and killed;
b. the fact that the knife used to stab Robert Wone was in the custody and control of Defendants at all relevant times;
c. the utter lack of evidence of an “intruder,” which led the Court in the criminal case to conclude that “the murder of Robert Wone was not committed by an intruder unknown to the defendants,” United States v. Price, et al., No. 08-CF1 27068, Slip Op. at 20 (D.C. Sup. Ct. June 29, 2010);
d. the evidence indicating that Robert Wone was incapacitated at the time of the stabbing, which is inconsistent with Defendants’ “intruder” theory;
e. the evidence indicating that Defendants altered and staged the crime scene after Robert Wone was assaulted and murdered;
f. the implausible accounts Defendants provided to EMS and MPD regarding the events and circumstances surrounding Robert Wone’s assault and murder; and
g. the false information Defendants provided to EMS and MPD regarding the events and circumstances surrounding Robert Wone’s assault and murder.
49. Plaintiff further asserts that, as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’
wrongful acts and/or negligence that caused Robert Wone’s death, Plaintiff has incurred all
damages cognizable under the District of Columbia Wrongful Death Statute, D.C. Code § 16-
- 11 -
2701, et seq., including but not limited to the decedent’s conscious pain and suffering, the
estate’s loss of the decedent’s future income, funeral and burial expenses, and any other damages
under the applicable statute.
50. Plaintiff asserts that, upon decedent’s death, Defendants fraudulently concealed
the existence of and the facts forming the basis of Plaintiff’s wrongful death claim, including
through the following affirmative acts: cleaning up and staging the crime scene, destroying
evidence, delaying the reporting of the murder to the authorities, and lying to MPD and others
(including, without limitation, Plaintiff Katherine Wone) about the true circumstances of Robert
Wone’s murder.
51. As a result of Defendants’ fraudulent concealment, as well as the secrecy of the
ongoing grand jury investigation into Robert Wone’s murder, Plaintiff did not gain knowledge
until reviewing the MPD Affidavit, despite Plaintiff’s reasonable diligence, of the existence and
the facts forming the basis of this wrongful death claim against Defendants.
52. Plaintiff filed this action less than one month after learning from the MPD
Affidavit of Plaintiff’s wrongful death claim against Defendants.
COUNT TWO: NEGLIGENCE (Failure to Aid)
53. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1
through 52 above as if set forth fully herein and asserts that this claim arises under the Survival
Act, D.C. Code § 12-101.
54. Defendants had a duty, including as the owners and occupiers of the residence
located at 1509 Swann Street, NW, in the District of Columbia, to render aid to Robert Wone, an
invited guest on the premises, upon discovering his injured and helpless condition and, upon
undertaking to render aid, Defendants had a duty to render such aid reasonably.
- 12 -
55. Defendants breached their duty of care and were negligent in failing reasonably to
render aid upon discovering Robert Wone in his injured and helpless condition—or,
alternatively, upon undertaking to render such aid, by failing immediately to summon emergency
medical personnel and instead taking time to clean up and stage the crime scene, and construct
and coordinate the fabricated story about an “intruder” committing the murder.
56. Defendants’ negligence in failing to aid or in negligently administering such aid to
Robert Wone cost him the chance of survival that he would have otherwise had.
57. Defendants’ negligence was a substantial factor in and was a direct and proximate
cause of Robert Wone’s death.
58. Plaintiff further asserts that, as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’
negligent conduct, Plaintiff has incurred all damages cognizable under the Survival Act, D.C.
Code § 12-101, including but not limited to the decedent’s conscious pain and suffering, the
estate’s loss of the decedent’s future income, funeral and burial expenses, and any other damages
under the applicable statute.
COUNT THREE: SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE
59. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1
through 58 above as if set forth fully herein.
60. Since August 2, 2006, Plaintiff has had potential civil causes of action against the
person or persons responsible for the assault, battery, and murder of Robert Wone under the laws
of the District of Columbia, including a wrongful death claim pursuant to D.C. Code § 16-2701
and various survival actions of the Estate of Robert Wone pursuant to D.C. Code § 12-101.
61. At all relevant times, Defendants have been under a legal duty not to destroy
evidence of Robert Wone’s murder or otherwise interfere with official proceedings relating to
- 13 -
Robert Wone’s murder. Further, upon undertaking to give statements to police investigating
Robert Wone’s murder, Defendants have been under a duty not to provide deliberately false or
misleading statements.
62. Defendants breached their duty, individually or in concert, either intentionally,
recklessly, or negligently, when they altered and orchestrated the crime scene, and destroyed,
altered, hid, or rearranged evidence relevant to the investigation. Defendants also breached their
duty, individually or in concert, by providing false or misleading statements to police
investigating the murder of Robert Wone and by failing to correct past false statements.
63. Defendants’ breach has materially impacted the chances and speed of identifying
Robert Wone’s killer(s) and discovering all of the circumstances of the murder. Defendants’
breach also has, until now, prevented Plaintiff from bringing civil actions against Defendants.
But for Defendants’ conduct described herein, Plaintiff already would have recovered substantial
monetary damages as a result of the assault, battery, and murder of Robert Wone.
64. Defendants’ spoliation of evidence has directly and proximately caused—and
continues directly and proximately to cause—damages to Plaintiff, including but not limited to
lost potential recovery for the decedent’s conscious pain and suffering, the estate’s loss of the
decedent’s future income, funeral and burial expenses, and any other damages under the
applicable statute, as well as any other damages cognizable under the law of the District of
Columbia under any or all of the potential civil claims described herein.
COUNT FOUR: CONSPIRACY (All Claims)
65. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1
through 64 above as if set forth fully herein.
- 14 -
66. Defendants are parties to an ongoing conspiracy that was conceived no later than
the night of Robert Wone’s murder, went into effect on that night, and continues to this day.
67. Each of the Defendants has, to varying degrees, participated in planning and
carrying out the objectives of the conspiracy, but all are nevertheless liable for the concerted
actions of their fellow co-conspirators.
68. The objects of the conspiracy are to (1) prevent the imposition of criminal and/or
civil liability on the Defendants for their actions on August 2, 2006; and (2) prevent law
enforcement, Robert Wone’s family and friends, and the public at large from knowing all
persons who bear responsibility for Robert Wone’s murder and the circumstances surrounding
the murder.
69. In furtherance of the conspiracy, one or more Defendants have thwarted the
investigation of Robert Wone’s murder by hiding and destroying evidence, altering and
orchestrating the crime scene, delaying the reporting of the murder to the authorities, and
providing false and misleading information to EMS and MPD about their conduct and the events
and circumstances surrounding Robert Wone’s murder—all of which constitutes spoliation of
evidence.
70. The concerted actions of one or more Defendants prevented the Defendants from
reasonably aiding Robert Wone after the stabbing, contributing in substantial part to his death.
71. This ongoing conspiracy of obstruction and obfuscation continues to impede
efforts to bring those responsible for Robert Wone’s murder and the cover-up of his murder to
justice.
- 15 -
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, jointly and
severally, in the full and just amount of Twenty Million Dollars ($20,000,000), plus interest and
costs.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff, through counsel, requests a trial by jury on all of the above claims.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Stephen W. Rodger_________
Benjamin J. Razi (brazi@cov.com) D.C. Bar No. 475946 Stephen W. Rodger (srodger@cov.com) D.C. Bar No. 485518 Brett C. Reynolds (breynolds@cov.com) D.C. Bar No. 996100 COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 662-6000
Patrick M. Regan (pregan@reganfirm.com) D.C. Bar No. 336107 REGAN ZAMBRI & LONG, PLLC 1919 M Street, NW, Suite 350 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 463-3030
Dated: September 29, 2010 Counsel for Plaintiff
- 16 -
top related