Undisclosed Part 3: Civil suit, criminal probe collide in Davis’s $15M verdict

Undisclosed: Civil suit, criminal probe collide in Davis’s $15M verdict

A SERIES

Part 3: A crisis manufactured?

Editor’s Note: This is Part 3 in a multi-part series examining the legal battle between the Alachua County Sheriff’s Office (ACSO) and ACSO Sgt. Kevin Davis.

GAINESVILLE – In the aftermath of the $15 million verdict against the Alachua County Sheriff’s Office (ACSO), one question looms larger with each new revelation: Was the public narrative shaped by something more than facts? Over the course of nearly two years, a succession of lawsuits, employee complaints, and media coverage created an image of dysfunction and misconduct inside Sheriff Clovis Watson’s administration. But a closer look raises an unsettling possibility – that the Sheriff was not just a defendant in court, but rather a target in a coordinated campaign.

In early 2023, Kevin Davis filed a reverse discrimination civil lawsuit against Watson, alleging he had been repeatedly passed over for promotion because he is white. On the very same day the civil lawsuit was filed, Davis’s attorney, Bobi Frank, contacted the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) in a bid to have that agency launch a criminal investigation targeting Watson and his administration. In the following months, Frank’s clientele grew to include not just Davis, but also numerous other ACSO employees who either sued the Sheriff or became key witnesses in both civil and criminal proceedings.

Nearly all of those individuals were granted immunity in the FDLE criminal probe initiated at Frank’s request. But none of that context ever reached the public or the jury.

 

Litigation or Strategy?

From an outside perspective, the sheer volume of legal action against Watson created an unmistakable impression. Davis sued. Capt. Rebecca Butscher sued. Sgt. Frank Williams sued. Each lawsuit was fodder for a hungry media that resulted in a dog and pony show through traditional and online media, often with minimal pushback from the Sheriff’s Office, which cited ongoing litigation as the reason for silence.

Media outlets, including local TV stations and regional newspapers, whether wittingly or not, began framing the Sheriff’s Office as a troubled agency beset by scandals and legal defeats. In one article, published in The Gainesville Sun in June 2023, attorney Bobi Frank claimed Watson rescinded disciplinary actions against officers not out of fairness, but to avoid further exposure of unlawful behavior. That assertion was given prominent placement, while Watson’s own statement explaining his actions received lesser placement near the bottom.

 

The Media Echo Chamber

What many of the stories published at the time failed to disclose was that many of the individuals now cast as victims had been represented by Frank – the same attorney who had sought the FDLE criminal investigation underpinning their claims. Nor did the coverage ever explore the broader implications of granting immunity to key witnesses or the concerns that Frank had simultaneously brought civil claims while using a state agency to investigate so-called criminal acts.

Meanwhile, Frank’s involvement with the criminal investigation was shielded from the public and jury’s view. And the media did not report that the State Attorney for the Third Circuit, John Durrett determined that it was not Watson or his administration who acted illegally, but rather, it was Frank’s own client.

Even the $15 million civil jury verdict for Davis was reported without key context: defendant Watson was black, plaintiff Davis was white and the jury was all white. For a case grounded in claims of racial discrimination, the absence of this detail from some mainstream coverage was striking. It left the public with the impression that a grave injustice had occurred – without raising the possibility that public perception itself had been manipulated. It was also clear that negative attention directed to ACSO was exacerbated by social media comments.

 

Controlled Narrative, Controlled Venue

Adding to the concern is how FDLE’s investigation played out. According to records, the agency conducted several witness interviews at Frank’s law office – a highly unusual practice that raises questions about independence and influence. At least one witness, former ACSO Capt. Brandon Kutner, admitted to secretly recording another meeting involving Frank and another one of her clients. Kutner did not speak to FDLE on the record until after he was granted immunity by the State Attorney’s Office.

Frank’s use of her law office as the location for multiple FDLE interviews – while simultaneously representing many of the same individuals – suggests that there may have been undue influence over the flow of information to FDLE. These circumstances raise legitimate concerns about whether the investigation was shaped by an attorney with a personal stake in its outcome.

 

The Courtroom Battle Over Optics and Scope

Pretrial motions in Davis’s civil trial provide additional insight into how each side attempted to shape the courtroom environment. Frank filed a motion requesting that ACSO deputies be prohibited from wearing their duty firearms while testifying. The defense opposed it, arguing that deputies appearing in uniform, sidearm included, was standard practice. The court sided with the defense, but the motion underscored Frank’s efforts to influence how the jury would perceive law enforcement witnesses.

On the other side, the defense filed a motion seeking to block the introduction of any evidence or testimony related to the FDLE criminal investigation. The concern was that introducing references to an open criminal probe – requested by plaintiff Davis’s counsel – would unfairly suggest wrongdoing where no charges had been filed.

At the hearing, Frank argued that the FDLE investigation was highly relevant and should not be excluded. Judge Gloria Walker ultimately denied the defense’s motion, allowing testimony about the investigation, even though FDLE’s probe was still ongoing and would later conclude without criminal charges.

This is particularly significant given the nature of Davis’s lawsuit. His civil complaint centered on allegations of reverse racial discrimination and retaliation – not illegal recordings or other alleged crimes that were of interest to FDLE. Yet FDLE’s investigation only resulted in two referred charges, both related to alleged unlawful recordings. Neither of those involved Davis directly, and both were ultimately declined by State Attorney Durrett.

 

A Verdict Built on Air?

Currently, with ACSO still fighting to vacate the verdict, the stakes could not be higher. A case that began with a disputed promotion has evolved into a test of the justice system itself. Was the lawsuit a standalone complaint? Or was it the first move in a broader campaign to dismantle an administration through legal pressure and media manipulation?

The legal record may never answer that question. But the sequence of events – and the gaps in what the public was allowed to know – deserve closer scrutiny.

 

Next in Part 4: What the Jury Never Saw

Testimony, motions, and exhibits told only part of the story. In Part 4, we examine the critical facts that never reached the jury — including immunity deals, ethical blind spots, and courtroom decisions that shaped what could and could not be revealed. If the jury had the full picture, would the verdict have changed?

#     #     #

Email editor@alachuatoday.com