Undisclosed Part 2: Civil suit, criminal probe collide in Davis’s $15M verdict

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

A SERIES

Part 2: The immunity nobody mentioned

Editor’s Note: This is Part 2 in a multi-part series examining the legal battle between the Alachua County Sheriff’s Office (ACSO) and ACSO Sgt. Kevin Davis.

 Sidebar

TIMELINE: Behind the Verdict

• Kutner secretly monitors Frank during a conversation with another client, ACSO employee David Hardy.

Feb. 15, 2023

• Kevin Davis files a civil lawsuit alleging reverse discrimination and retaliation.
• The same day, Davis’s attorney Bobi J. Frank contacts FDLE requesting a criminal investigation into ACSO leadership.

March–May 2023

• FDLE begins interviewing witnesses—at Frank’s own law office.
• Frank appears on behalf of at least eight FDLE witnesses, including retired Capt. Brandon Kutner.

May 2023

• Kutner admits to the illegal monitoring.
• FDLE interview notes confirm Kutner received immunity from prosecution before testifying.
• None of this is disclosed to the defense prior to or during Davis’s civil trial.

Feb. 7, 2025

• Jury awards Davis $15 million.
• Jury is not informed of Kutner’s immunity nor the collapse of the FDLE criminal case.

Feb. 19, 2025

• State Attorney John Durrett issues letter confirming no charges filed in the FDLE probe.

April 2025

• ACSO obtains Durrett’s letter and FDLE case materials.
• Files motion to amend post-trial filings to include newly discovered evidence.

June 2025

• Court denies ACSO’s request to amend.
• Post-trial hearing limited to arguments in ACSO’s original motion to set aside and overturn jury verdict.

July 2025

• Post-trial motions to be heard for ACSO request to overturn verdict, reduce $15M award amount.

 

Staff Report

Alachua County Today

GAINESVILLE – In this installment, newly uncovered records reveal how a $15 million civil verdict may have been influenced by undisclosed witness immunity, a secret monitoring, and overlapping legal strategies between civil and criminal proceedings.

A Key Witness with a Hidden Past

Central to the controversy is retired ACSO Capt. Brandon Kutner, whose testimony supported Davis’s retaliation claims but whose behind-the-scenes legal maneuvers – including an immunity deal and a covert monitoring of his own attorney – were never shared with the jury. As the sheriff’s office seeks a new trial, the case raises serious questions about due process, legal ethics, and the integrity of the verdict.

 

Parallel Investigations Begin

Plaintiff Davis filed the civil lawsuit in February 2023 against the Sheriff’s office, alleging reverse discrimination and retaliation after being passed over for promotion by then-Sheriff Clovis Watson, Jr. But that same day, Davis’s attorney, Bobi J. Frank, contacted the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) advocating for a criminal investigation against the same officials named in the civil case.

The result was a parallel criminal probe by FDLE that unfolded largely out of public view –and without full disclosure to the jury.

 

The Immunity Deal and Secret Monitoring

With a post-trial hearing scheduled for July 15, the Alachua County Sheriff’s Office is seeking to overturn the jury’s decision, citing the excessive jury award and the jury’s exposure to allegedly improper testimony among other factors.

Troubling new information has surfaced regarding one of the plaintiff’s key witnesses – now retired ACSO Captain Brandon Kutner. According to FDLE records, Kutner admitted to secretly monitoring a conversation involving his attorney, Bobi J. Frank, and ACSO Deputy James Hardy. Records also show that when Frank and Hardy met in an ACSO office equipped with audiovisual and monitoring technology, Frank openly inquired if that room was a safe place to talk with Hardy. Meanwhile, Kutner was in another room monitoring the conversation. It is not clear if Frank was genuinely concerned with the confidentiality of her conversation with Hardy or if she was merely feigning it for the purpose of building out a claim.

 

A Pattern of Overlap and Omission

Notably, FDLE was investigating two instances of alleged illegal recording or monitoring by ACSO. In both instances Frank was the subject of the alleged illegal conduct. These circumstances raise the question: Was it possible that Frank was orchestrating and manufacturing evidence as a foundation for an FDLE investigation and subsequent civil suit?

Frank’s representation of potentially adverse parties raises concerns of possible conflicts of interest. The State Attorney’s Office later confirmed that Kutner received immunity before admitting to the conduct. FDLE records make clear that Kutner did not testify to FDLE investigators until after he received a formal grant of immunity. His admission about the secret monitoring came during that interview – which took place at Frank’s own law office, a location that appears multiple times in FDLE’s investigative files as the setting for early witness interviews.

Records reflect that Frank sat in on and represented at least eight witnesses during the early stages of the FDLE probe – a probe she requested that FDLE conduct. Nearly all of Frank’s eight clients received immunity for their testimony with FDLE. People will often obtain immunity when they have knowledge of an alleged crime and also may be implicated in that or another crime as a result of their own conduct. Frank also sued ACSO on behalf of several of her other clients.

 

What the Jury Never Knew

This development was never disclosed to the jury during Davis’s civil trial. The immunity Kutner was granted was also never raised during his civil trial testimony, nor was the jury informed that he had admitted to the conduct. There is no indication the defense was informed of the immunity agreement prior to the close of evidence.

These circumstances are now central to ACSO’s argument that the civil proceedings were tainted by withheld information and undue influence. In post-trial filings, ACSO argued that had the jury known about Kutner’s immunity and his illegal monitoring, it would have fundamentally changed how his credibility was assessed.

The same filings may suggest that Frank’s representation of multiple witnesses in the same investigation – while being secretly recorded by one – raises serious ethical concerns, especially when the resulting information was used to help shape the FDLE’s investigatory narrative. One implication that could be surmised is that the criminal probe was never independent at all, but was instead shaped behind the scenes by Davis’s civil trial legal team to bolster their case.

Kutner’s testimony featured prominently in the trial, providing details that supported plaintiff Davis’s retaliation narrative. Yet the context behind Kutner’s participation – the immunity deal, the secret monitoring, and the location of his interviews – was all withheld from the jury’s view.

The jury did not hear how the FDLE criminal probe interviews unfolded in a setting controlled by Davis’s own counsel. And notably, the jury never heard that the criminal investigation had been closed with no charges filed.

 

A Verdict on Incomplete Information

This means that the jury’s verdict rested on an incomplete picture of what happened in the FDLE investigation because they never heard about the immunity of Kutner and others, the secret monitoring, or his participation in what may have been a coordinated legal strategy. ACSO’s attorneys argue that this resulted in a lack of fundamental fairness.

The central question remains: Did Davis’s legal team possess knowledge and control over both sides of the FDLE criminal investigation and civil proceedings, shaping them in tandem to achieve a result that the facts alone could not support?

The jury never had a chance to ask that question. And unless the court reopens the door, neither will anyone else.

 

Next, in Part 3: Manufactured Crisis?

Over the course of two years, Sheriff Clovis Watson, Jr., became the subject of one lawsuit, then another–and another. But were the media being used to reinforce a carefully constructed narrative of scandal?

#     #     #

Email editor@alachuatoday.com