DETECTIVE VINCENT FERNANDO’S POSITION PAPER ADDRESSING

FALSE ACCUSATIONS OF INTENTIONAL MISCONDUCT DURING

STATE v. GREGORY AND BRANDON CASE

From: The law firm of Reynolds | Kirschberg

Date: July 19, 2025

__________________________________________________________________

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Detective Vincent Fernando, until the events described herein, had lived the
American dream. He emigrated to the United States from Sri Lanka over 44 years
ago, arriving with practically nothing. Through hard work and sharp business sense,
he became a successful entrepreneur, then fulfilled his lifelong dream of becoming
a law enforcement officer, ultimately serving over 20 honorable years with a pristine
record of excellent police work, in addition to educating other law enforcement
officers at the Mississippi Law Enforcement Officers’ Training Program. He had
never committed, nor been accused of, malfeasance of any sort until State of
Mississippi v. Gregory Case and Brandon Case, No. 1:22-cr-159 (Circuit Court of
Lincoln County) (hereafter “State v. Case”), during which he was falsely and
illogically accused of intentionally withholding evidence lacking exculpatory value
from the defendants.

The attempted murder and conspiracy charges in State v. Case arose from a
January 24, 2022 shooting incident in Brookhaven, Mississippi, when two Caucasian
Brookhaven residents—Bandon and Gregory Case—allegedly conspired to commit
felonies against a black man, FedEx driver D’Monterrio Gibson. On that date, Mr.
Gibson, who was dressed in his FedEx uniform, was delivering a package into one
of the defendant’s mailboxes. He was simply doing his job. For this, Gregory
allegedly used his pickup truck to attempt to run Mr. Gibson off the road, while
Brandon allegedly fired a handgun at Mr. Gibson’s vehicle as he (Mr. Gibson) was
attempting to flee from Gregory. Brandon allegedly struck Mr. Gibson’s vehicle
with several bullets, at least two of which entered the vehicle’s interior and could
have killed Mr. Gibson.

Det. Fernando conducted a prompt, thorough, by-the-book investigation,

uncovering evidence of the Cases’ guilt. The Mississippi Bureau of Investigation
revealed that Mr. Gibson’s vehicle and the packages therein were riddled with bullet
holes that did not exist before January 24, 2022. Brandon and Gregory Case (father
1
and son) admitted they confronted and pursued Mr. Gibson, denying only that
Brandon discharged a firearm at Mr. Gibson’s vehicle. But Mr. Gibson’s FedEx
supervisor, Crecca Williams, was on the phone with Mr. Gibson as he attempted to
flee for his life. She heard gunshots while Mr. Gibson screamed, “They’re shooting
at me!”

Mr. Gibson immediately reported the incident and met with Det. Fernando the
next day. Det. Fernando compiled a plethora of inculpatory evidence against the
Cases and delivered his full investigative file to the Lincoln County D.A.’s Office
in/around June 2022.

However, Det. Fernando would later become a scapegoat after defense

counsel alleged that Det. Fernando withheld certain evidence from the defendants.
Although Det. Fernando, in fact, turned his complete file over to the D.A.’s Office
(and consistently testified to this fact), defense counsel, and even the D.A.’s Office,
cherry-picked his testimony to incorrectly conclude Det. Fernando had intentionally
withheld evidence; evidence which no one—not even defense counsel—claimed
was exculpatory or probative of the Cases’ innocence. And, most of the late-
produced evidence was duplicative of other evidence already provided to defense
counsel.

The Judge initially declared a mistrial, then dismissed this credible murder
case with prejudice. The Judge predicated his dismissal on the erroneous conclusion
that Det. Fernando intentionally withheld non-exculpatory, largely duplicative
evidence.1 Thus, two white men escaped prosecution of credible allegations that they
attempted to murder an unarmed, black FedEx driver wearing his FedEx uniform as
he was attempting to flee from the Cases, who chased and allegedly shot at him after
he delivered a package. At the time the Judge dismissed the case, no new trial date
was set, and the Cases could not credibly claim they were prejudiced by the D.A.’s
late production of benign, non-exculpatory evidence (nor did they attempt to argue
the late-produced evidence had exculpatory value).

This extreme injustice to Det. Fernando and Mr. Gibson—both dark skinned,
non-Caucasian men—was, regrettably, not the first time racial injustice has befallen
Lincoln County. It adds another layer to the County’s sordid history of racial

1
Upon declaring the mistrial, the Judge also noted that Det. Fernando had violated an
Order in Limine when testifying at trial that, during his execution of a search warrant, he found
rifles in Brandon Case’s trailer. However, the Judge did not declare a mistrial at that time. He
instead ruled that a curative instruction to the jury would sufficiently negate the testimony.
2
injustice, including: The mob of 2,000 white men who killed Eli Pigot near the turn
of the 20th century, murdering him in broad daylight but facing no prosecution; the
shooting of African American Lamar Smith, a World War I combat veteran killed
on the courthouse steps by an incensed mob of white men who never faced justice;
the murder of civil rights activist Hollis Watkins in 1964 by white supremacists who
evaded justice; and the historical prevalence of the Ku Klux Klan and other white
supremacist groups that use violence and intimidation tactics against minorities.

On January 7, 2025, the Brookhaven Board of Aldermen initially (and

wrongfully) terminated Detective Fernando because of the false allegations of
intentional wrongdoing in State v. Case and subsequent media reports republishing
these false allegations. However, the Board, after receiving Detective Fernando’s
Position Paper setting forth the true facts, recently corrected its wrongful termination
by rescinding the termination, reinstating Detective Fernando’s employment, and
allowing him to retire from the Brookhaven Police Department on his own terms,
effective January 31, 2025, with full back pay and retirement benefits. (Det.
Fernando attempted to take retirement several months prior to the State v. Case trial,
but the Brookhaven Chief of Police convinced him to delay his retirement until after
the trial.)

Detective Fernando now wishes to reclaim his good name and reputation. The
Board of Aldermen, by reinstating Det. Fernando and allowing him to retire effective
January 31, 2025, with back pay and benefits, has taken an important first step
toward reestablishing Det. Fernando’s hard-earned good name and reputation. But
more must be done. The public, who were misled by inaccurate media reports that
Det. Fernando had intentionally withheld evidence, must be apprised of the true
facts. This Position Paper thus seeks to correct the record and restore Det. Fernando’s
good name and reputation.

3
 POSITION PAPER

I. Detective Fernando’s Background and Employment History.

Detective Fernando, originally from Sri Lanka, emigrated to the United States
over 44 years ago. Since arriving in the United States with practically nothing, he
has built and lived a remarkable and productive life. Through his hard work and
astute business acumen, he became a thriving entrepreneur, owning a successful
convenience store, taxi medallions, and other businesses. But through all these
successes, he held onto his childhood dream of working in law enforcement.

Detective Fernando’s lifelong fascination with, and dream of becoming

involved in, law enforcement materialized in 1999, when the Chief of the Osyka,
Mississippi, police department (“OPD”)—who regularly visited Detective
Fernando’s convenience store, leading the two to form a friendship—suggested that
Det. Fernando seek admission to Mississippi’s Police Academy. He informed
Detective Fernando that, if he wished to seek admission to the Academy, the OPD
would sponsor his application (a requirement for admission at the time).

Presented with the opportunity to fulfill his lifelong ambition, Det. Fernando,
sponsored by the OPD, enrolled in the Police Academy, graduating in 2004 and
becoming a certified law enforcement officer that fall. Det. Fernando then began his
new career in law enforcement as a part-time patrol officer with the OPD. Through
diligence, integrity, and hard work, he quickly moved up the ranks, proving himself
an exceptional police officer.

Only months after starting his part-time patrol duties with the OPD, the
Summit Police Department (“SPD”) (also in Pike County) offered Det. Fernando a
full-time patrol officer’s job. Det. Fernando accepted.

In 2008, after completing the Certified Investigative Program, the SPD

promoted Det. Fernando to the rank of Detective. Then, in 2010, the Memphis,
Tennessee Police Department offered Det. Fernando a position as an undercover
detective. Det. Fernando accepted. He then developed and executed an operation to
run an undercover pawn shop, which led to several arrests and successful
prosecutions for theft, drug trafficking, and other illegal activity.

In 2011, as the undercover pawn operation was winding down, Det. Fernando
accepted an offer to return to the SPD as a detective, where he worked in that role
until 2016, when he accepted the Pike County Sheriff’s Office’s offer to name him
4
the Department’s Major of Operations. Around this time, Det. Fernando was also
honored by the Mississippi Law Enforcement Officers’ Training Program, which
offered him an instructor position training law enforcement officers in martial arts
and enhanced tactical defense. Det. Fernando accepted the position and fulfilled his
teaching duties in addition to his regular law enforcement responsibilities.

While working as an instructor at the Mississippi Law Enforcement Training

Program, he came to know and befriend Brookhaven Police Department’s (“BPD”)
Chief of Police, Kenneth Collins. Chief Collins admired Det. Fernando’s skill,
dedication, and work ethic, and believed Det. Fernando would make an excellent
addition to the BPD. On December 15, 2020, Det. Fernando accepted an offer from
the BPD to join the Department as a detective.

Det. Fernando’s first few years with the BPD were satisfying and productive.
However, he would soon become the scapegoat for the failed prosecution of two
Caucasian men charged with the attempted murder of an African American FedEx
driver, a prosecution that gained national media attention due to its racial component
and the credible evidence against the defendants, Brandon and Gregory Case.

Det. Fernando ultimately became the target of not only defense counsel, but
also the Lincoln County District Attorney, resulting in the Judge incorrectly
concluding that Det. Fernando had intentionally (and illogically) withheld evidence
from the D.A. and defendants. Consequently, the Judge dismissed the criminal case
with prejudice, even though the allegedly withheld evidence had no exculpatory
value, and its delayed production to defense counsel caused their clients no material
prejudice.

Shortly after, in January 2025, the Brookhaven Board of Aldermen (wrongly)

terminated Det. Fernando’s employment. However, as noted above, the Board, in
July 2025, after being presented with evidence detailing the true facts, rescinded its
wrongful termination, reinstated Detective Fernando’s employment, and allowed
him to retire, effective January 31, 2025, with full back pay and retirement benefits.

Detective Fernando now seeks to correct the false narrative that he committed
any malfeasance during the investigation into, or prosecution of, State v. Case, which
was unjustly propagated through his termination (now rescinded) and subsequent
media reports.2

2
See, e.g., https://www.wlbt.com/2025/01/08/city-votes-terminate-lead-detective-who-
withheld-evidence-fedex-shooting-investigation/;
5
II. The Shooting Incident and Detective Fernando’s Investigation.

On January 24, 2022, D’Monterrio Gibson, an African American FedEx

driver in full FedEx uniform, was delivering packages in the Brookhaven area.3
While attempting to deliver a package to 417 Junior Trail, Mr. Gibson mistakenly
typed “427” Junior Trail into his GPS instead of “417” Junior Trail, causing his GPS
to direct him to a nonexistent address. When Mr. Gibson could not locate the
mailbox for delivering the package, he assumed the package was incorrectly
addressed and turned his vehicle around. As he was preparing to code the package
as undeliverable, however, he recognized his error, entered the correct address into
his GPS (417 Jr. Trail), and discovered the correct address was nearby.

Mr. Gibson drove to 417 Junior Trail, stopped his vehicle on the road, and
delivered the package into the mailbox for 417 Junior Trail. As he began to leave
immediately after delivering the package, a white pickup truck operated by a
Caucasian adult male allegedly approached him from the driveway leading to/from
417 Junior Trail and began following Mr. Gibson, horn blowing. Mr. Gibson,
assuming the driver merely wanted to pass him, pulled his vehicle to the right to
make space for the white pickup truck to pass. The pickup truck, however, then
allegedly moved in front of and swerved toward Mr. Gibson’s vehicle, cutting him
off and nearly forcing his vehicle into a ditch. Mr. Gibson, frightened by the pickup
truck’s hostile maneuvers, attempted to drive his vehicle around the white truck to
pull away from it.

As Mr. Gibson was driving around the white truck and attempting to leave the
area, he received a call from his FedEx supervisor, Crecca Williams. Mr. Gibson
advised Ms. Williams of the situation, and Ms. Williams instructed him to continue
fleeing from the white truck. As Mr. Gibson continued his effort to drive away while
still on the phone with Ms. Williams, another Caucasian male with a long beard
appeared standing in the road ahead of Mr. Gibson, allegedly pointing a handgun
directly toward Mr. Gibson’s front windshield.

Terrified, Mr. Gibson maneuvered his vehicle around the man and continued
driving away when he heard gunshots and bullets striking his vehicle. He yelled to

https://www.mississippifreepress.org/brookhaven-detective-fired-after-judge-dismisses-
charges-in-fedex-driver-shooting-case/; https://dailyleader.com/2025/01/08/city-of-
brookhaven-fires-officer-connected-to-dismissed-criminal-case/.
3
Mr. Gibson’s usual FedEx vehicle was being serviced, so he was driving a white truck
rented from Hertz Rentals. The van exhibited Hertz logos on the front doors and rear.
6
Ms. Williams, “They’re shooting at me!” Ms. Williams, who later provided a
statement to the BPD, heard at least two gunshots while on the phone with Mr.
Gibson. As Mr. Gibson continued driving away from the gunfire, the white truck
allegedly continued its aggressive pursuit until Mr. Gibson turned onto I-55, where
the white truck ceased its pursuit.

Fortunately, Mr. Gibson was not struck by the bullets, but his vehicle was hit
with at least three, causing bullet holes. Some of the bullets pierced the vehicle’s
exterior and entered the interior, where they damaged several boxes inside the truck.

Once he reached a safe distance from the shooter and pickup truck, Mr.
Gibson called his FedEx store Manager, Ernie Kelly, to report the shooting incident.
Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Gibson to return to the FedEx warehouse in Ridgeland, MS,
and suggested that they report the incident to the BPD the following day. Mr. Gibson,
however, called 911 to report the matter upon his return to Ridgeland, MS.

The 911 operator, Alan Henderson, informed Mr. Gibson that he had just
received a call from a Brookhaven resident residing on Junior Trail, who had
reported a “suspicious vehicle…occupied by two black males” on Junior Trail “all
day long.” Mr. Gibson responded that he was just a FedEx driver, wearing his FedEx
uniform, who was doing his job, not a “suspicious” person driving a “suspicious”
vehicle.

BPD Officer Alan Henderson provided a statement that:

On January 24, 2022 [t]he Brookhaven [P]olice

Department…received a call at approximately 7:14 PM via
our non-emergency line. The caller advised his name was
Gregory [C]ase. I asked Mr. Case what with his [sic]
emergency [and] he begins to tell me that he just went to
making aware [sic] that it was a suspicious vehicle in front of
the house on 417 Junior Trail all day long occupied by two
black males. He went on an[d] stated that when he came home
for his lunch break at work is when he first noticed them. I
instructed Mr. Case that I will send an officer out to speak
with him about this. He quickly replied “no that’s ok I’ll call
back if there’s a problem” and quickly hung up the line.

Around 7:25 PM I received a second call via our non[]-

emergency line from a man identifying himself as
7
 D’Monterrio Gibson[.] I asked Mr. Gibson where is
emergency [and] he stated…that two white men had shot at
him in Brookhaven, MS while he was delivering a package
for FedEx. I asked him the location [and] he stated 417 Junior
Trail. I then realized that this was the same address that Mr.
Case had given over the phone earlier. I then proceeded to ask
Mr. Gibson his location [and] he stated to me he was in
Ridgeland at the FedEx headquarters and that he and his boss
will be down in the morning to file charges. …

FedEx’s Crecca Williams provided a statement to Det. Fernando describing

the gunshots she heard while speaking with Mr. Gibson:

On 1/24/2022 around 7:27 PM I called courier D’Monterro

[sic] Gibson in regards to a pick up that was left on him. Once
he answered the phone he began to yell, “They are shooting
at me,” while yelling I heard 2 shots in the background. I then
ask[ed] if D’Monterro…was ok, and get back to the station
immediately. No response the call dropped. I waited to allow
him to get to safety before I attempted to call him back. I
immediate[ly] contacted my Sr. Mgr. Mark Molanar and
dispatch. Then later spoke with Corporate Security Paul
Woods in regards to the incident. Let me know if you need
additional information.

Ms. Williams also provided a statement to FedEx Security stating:

D’Monterrio Gibson on Route 68 had an incident that

involved a man opening fire on him as he delivered a package
near Junior Trail NE Road outside Brookhaven, MS. I called
D'Monterrio around 19:19 concerning a Walgreens stop. As[]
I [] spoke with D’Monterro I could hear shots fired in the
background. Verified if he was ok and advised him to get to
a safe location and head back to the station. As I waited for
D’Monterro to callback [sic] I reached out to Sr. Mgr. Mark
[and] he advised to contact Security Specialist Paul Woods.
Spoke with Paul [and] he advised to get a statement from
D’Monterro when he arrived back at the station. Upon his
arrival at the station I verified the courier was ok. Informed
dispatch and Mgr. Ernie Kelly of the incident. Below I have
8
 the statement written by D’Monterrio and photos of the bullet
holes in the vehicle.

Mr. Gibson’s above-referenced, signed statement dated January 24, 2022,

provided the facts surrounding the incident:

I was on my way to deliver to 417 Junior Trail in Brookhaven,

MS. I accidentally put in 427 Junior trail and had to stop to
get the correct address. I sat in the middle [sic] for about 30
seconds and once the address was correct I turned around in
a random yard and proceeded to go to the correct address.
Once there I got out and delivered the package and hopped
back in my van. I noticed a white pickup truck coming
towards me from the house behind and thought that they were
just leaving. They got extremely close and blew the horn. I
proceeded to try to leave because I thought I was in their way.
As I was trying to leave the driveway, the pickup attempted
to cut me off. I swerved around it and drove about two houses
down and that’s when I noticed a white male standing in the
street pointing a gun at my vehicle. He attempted to get me to
stop but I drove around him as well. As I drove around him
he began shooting at the back of my van. I proceeded to floor
it. The white pickup then proceeded to chase me. Crecca
called as this was happening. The white truck then proceeded
to chase me all the way to the highway and once I felt safe I
called Ernie and told him what happened. He told me that he
would go file a report with Brookhaven Police Department in
the morning. After calling him I proceeded to call
Brookhaven Police Department to file a report just in case.
They proceeded to take my statement and informed me that
the shooter had called in a suspicious person was in the
neighborhood but he failed to inform them that he shot at my
vehicle. After I informed them that I would be coming back
tomorrow with my manager I proceeded back to the station
and we discovered bullet holes not only in the door but in
packages as well.

FedEx operations manager Ernie Kelly also provided a statement to Det.

Fernando providing:

9
 Good morning. I writing [sic] this statement on D’Monterio
[sic] Gibson. Mr. Gibson call[ed] me Tuesday around 1930
stating that he had just been shot at on Junior Trail. I asked
him where was his location and he stated on I55 heading back
to the station. At that point I inform that me are [sic] another
will accompany him the next day to the Brookhaven Police
Dept. to file a police report and to press charges.

FedEx supervisor Candice Welch also provided a statement to Det. Fernando

providing:

On January 25 when I got in to work I had received an email

from a coworker at the time Crecca Williams. The email
stated that Dmonterio [sic] Gibson was in Brookhaven the
night before and was trying to deliver a package and was shot
at. When I spoke with my senior manager about it, we decided
that I should go with Dmonterio to the police department that
morning so he could file a report. When he got into work that
morning, we spoke with him about what happened the night
before and if he was ok. I spent about 2 hours or more
Dmonterio [sic] at the police department on January 25.

The next day (January 25, 2022), Mr. Gibson and Candice Welch contacted
the BPD to again report the incident. Officer Kennis Montgomery received the call
and asked Mr. Gibson to travel to the BPD to provide a statement and prepare a
complaint.

After Officer Montgomery met with Mr. Gibson and Ms. Welch on January
25, 2022, Officer Montgomery prepared an Incident Report providing the following
narrative:

I met with Demonterrio [sic] Gibson and his boss Candiace

Welch. Mr. Gibson said he works with FEDEX and [] was on
Junior Trl and found the address he was looking for[,] 417
Junior Trl. He pulled into driveway, delivered the package,
and was leaving. An unknown male came from the residence
behind 417 Junior Trl, got into a white in color pickup, and
began to follow him, going into the ditch trying to cut him off.
[W]hen [Mr. Gibson] looked up the road, he saw a white male
standing in the roadway, pointing a gun at him. Mr. Gibson
10
 said he swerved around the man, and that[‘] when he heard at
least 5 shots, and heard the bullets hitting the van. The white
pickup followed Mr. Gibson all the way to the interstate,
where he finally stopped giving chase. Mr. Gibson went back
to his company’s yard, FEDEX Express, 440 Hwy 49 S.,
Richland, MS 39218, phone number 601-966-2689.

Ms. Candice Welch said she was Mr. Gibson’s boss. The van
had at least two bullet holes. One in the back door and one in
the bumper. Three packages inside had bullet holes in them.
She also had a picture of a bullet, that [was] still laying [i]n
[the] van.

Shortly after, Mr. Gibson met with Detective Fernando, who asked Mr.
Gibson to provide the current location of the FedEx vehicle involved in the incident.
Mr. Gibson advised it was parked at the FedEx warehouse in Ridgeland. Mr. Gibson
provided photographs of the vehicle’s exterior, which showed the bullet holes, and
also provided a picture of a projectile (spent bullet) found inside the vehicle.

At Det. Fernando’s request, Mr. Gibson provided a written statement:

I, D’Monterrio Gibson, make the following statement to

Vincent Fernando. On the day of January 24, 2022, I was
delivering a package to 417 Junior Trail. I accidentally put in
427 instead of 417 which led me to a random spot in the road
because of the incorrect address. I then proceeded to leave the
neighborhood and I was go[ing to] code it up as [an] incorrect
address. Upon leaving I realized my mistake and stopped to
enter the correct address which only took about 30 seconds
after I fixed it. I then proceeded to turn around in a yard and
head back to 417 Junior Trail. After arriving, I hopped out,
delivered the package, and proceeded to leave. At that time, I
noticed a white pickup truck approaching from a house
behind the house I was delivering to. I thought that he was
just attempting to leave the driveway that we shared until he
got extremely close and started blowing his horn at me. I tried
to get out of his way and as I proceeded to exit the driveway[.]
[H]e swerved around me and tried to cut me off. I then
swerved around him and started flooring the gas to get to
safety. I drove down the street about two or three houses and
11
 as I’m driving a man was standing in the street pointing a gun
at my windshield. He was attempting to get me to stop. I
started ducking in hopes that he wouldn’t shoot me and
swerved around him as well. After I swerved around him he
started firing off rounds at the back of my van. At that point I
kept trying to drive to safety. As I’m driving I looked back
and noticed the white pickup truck still following me. He then
proceeded to follow me all the way until I hit the highway.
After I felt safe I called my boss Ernie and he said he would
come with [me] in the morning and we would file a report.
Knowing that they would ask me why didn’t I report sooner,
I then proceeded to call [the] Brookhaven police department
to report it. The person on the phone informed [me] that the
person who shot at me already called to report a suspicious
person incident but he failed to inform the police that he shot
at me. I then told him that I’m not a suspicious person but a
FedEx driver who was only trying to do my job. He then took
my name down and told me that he would give it to his
supervisor and that I should come report the incident the
following day. I proceeded back to the station and upon
arrival one of the managers started inspecting the van [and]
found multiple bullet [holes] on the back right side, the
bumper, and multiple packages inside the van. We even found
a bullet fragment on the bumper. We then document[ed] and
took pictures of everything.

Det. Fernando recorded the interview (video and audio), then immediately began his
investigation.

Det. Fernando, along with Officer Kelsie Evans (B-16), traveled to the scene
of the incident on Junior Trail. They arrived at 417 Junior Trail and knocked on the
door. The lady who opened the door claimed she was not a resident, but was there
cleaning. She advised that the homeowners were Gregory and Sharon Case, and that
their son, Brandon Case, lived in the trailer next door (422 Junior Trail). She stated
that Brandon worked at the Brookhaven Honda dealership.4

4
Det. Fernando knew from BPD call logs that Gregory and Brandon Case had called 911
on January 24 to report a suspicious African American driving a vehicle on their street, but,
according to Officer Henderson’s report, Gregory allegedly rejected his offer to dispatch a
patrol vehicle to the area.
12
 Det. Fernando and Officer Evans then traveled to Brookhaven Honda (111
Stribling Road) to locate and question Brandon. Bodycam footage shows they found
Brandon sitting at a desk in the dealership, and Det. Fernando asked him about the
incident. Brandon initially refused to provide his driver’s license and was non-
responsive to most questions, shaking his head to indicate “no” in response to several
questions. The bodycam footage shows that Brandon later became more cooperative
after Det. Fernando advised that he had information indicating that Brandon had
allegedly fired a weapon at Mr. Gibson’s vehicle. Per the bodycam footage, Brandon
responded that he had merely stood in the road in front of Mr. Gibson’s vehicle,
seeking only to flag it down, and denied firing a weapon. Det. Fernando then
provided Brandon with his card and asked him to come to the BPD to provide a
statement by the next day.

That day (January 25), Det. Fernando advised Chief Investigator Clint Earl
that Mr. Gibson’s vehicle needed to be processed for evidence of a crime (bullet
holes, the projectile, etc.). Chief Earl responded that Mr. Gibson should drive the
vehicle from Ridgeland to the BPD for processing. Det. Fernando knew, however,
that moving evidence violated protocol since doing so could raise issues related to
evidence tampering and the chain of custody. Det. Fernando then asked an Assistant
D.A. for advice. The ADA, along with District Attorney Dee Bates, advised Det.
Fernando to contact the MBI. As instructed, Det. Fernando contacted the MBI and
spoke with Agent Greg Nestor, who advised that the MBI would process the vehicle
at its Ridgeland location and issue a report detailing its findings.

The MBI processed Mr. Gibson’s vehicle and issued a report dated January
26, 2022, detailing the bullet holes found in the vehicle’s exterior: Two projectile
(i.e., bullet) impacts on the rear right passenger side door; a projectile impact on the
passenger side of the rear bumper; and a projectile located in the vehicle’s interior
at the center cargo area at the rear of the vehicle. The three projectile impacts were
examined, and the MBI determined that the projectile piercing the rear passenger
side had perforated through the exterior into the vehicle’s interior. The MBI
recovered and delivered the projectile to the Mississippi Crime Lab. The third
projectile, impacting the rear passenger side bumper, had also perforated the vehicle
but did not enter its interior. The Report noted that several boxes in the vehicle
exhibited holes from projectiles.

On January 26, 2022, Det. Fernando spoke with Mr. Gibson’s FedEx
supervisor, Crecca Williams, who described her telephone call with Mr. Gibson as
the incident occurred. She stated that Mr. Gibson, terrified, screamed that an
unknown male was standing in the road on Junior Trail, firing a handgun at his
13
vehicle. Ms. Williams also described hearing gunshots over the phone. Det.
Fernando asked her to submit a written statement summarizing her call with Mr.
Gibson (which she did, as quoted above).

That day (January 26), Det. Fernando contacted FedEx to arrange for Mr.
Gibson to return to the BPD to view a photo lineup, which was scheduled for January
31, 2022. Det. Fernando also spoke with Mr. Gibson’s FedEx Manager, Ernie Kelly.
Mr. Kelly described how Mr. Gibson called him after he reached safety and reported
that an unknown white male had fired a handgun at his vehicle. Mr. Kelly stated he
advised Mr. Gibson to return to the FedEx Office in Ridgeland, and they would file
a police report the following day. Det. Fernando asked Mr. Kelly to submit a written
statement summarizing those facts (which he did, as quoted above).

Brookhaven Municipal Judge Williams executed a search warrant for

Brandon’s trailer at 422 Junior Trail on January 25, 2022. The next day (January 26,
2022), Det. Fernando, along with BPD Officer Mossman, traveled to Brookhaven
Honda to again meet with Brandon. They informed him they had a warrant to search
his trailer at 422 Junior Trail and asked him to provide them with access. The three
men traveled to Brandon’s trailer, where they were joined by Brookhaven Capt. Earl,
Det. Buie, Officer Otis, and Deputy Matt to execute the search warrant. While
searching the trailer, law enforcement found a cache of weapons - 16 rifles and
shotguns, including several assault rifles (many kept in a large gun safe), along with
several high-capacity ammunition clips and ammunition. The officers, however, did
not find a single handgun (other than a BB gun).5

Upon completing the search, the BPD escorted Brandon to the station for
questioning. After receiving his Miranda rights, Brandon refused to talk to law
enforcement other than to advise that he was represented by legal counsel.

The next day (January 27, 2022), Det. Fernando called Gregory Case and
asked if he would voluntarily speak with BPD law enforcement about the January
24 incident. Gregory responded that he would meet with the BPD on February 3,
2022, claiming he could come no sooner because his wife was ill with Covid-19.

5
Det. Fernando was suspicious when the officers did not find a handgun. In his decades
of experience, individuals with large firearm collections—including several assault rifles—
always have at least one, and usually several, handguns. And Brandon Case, who knew he was
being investigated in the shooting incident, had had ample time to possibly dispose of or
otherwise conceal any incriminating evidence, like a handgun.
14
 On January 31, 2022, Mr. Gibson returned to the BPD to view the photo
lineup. After examining a photo lineup containing six suspects, several of whom
looked similar to Brandon, Mr. Gibson identified Brandon Case as the man who
stood in the road and fired a handgun at Mr. Gibson/his vehicle on January 24, 2022.
Based on the evidence collected to date, Det. Fernando requested arrest warrants for
Brandon and Gregory Case. Judge Williams issued the warrants and set bond at
$150,000 for Brandon and $75,000 for Gregory.

On February 1, 2022, Gregory appeared at the BPD with his attorney, Terrell
Stubbs. After receiving his Miranda rights, Gregory refused to speak. He was then
arrested for conspiracy to commit aggravated assault and transported to the Lincoln
County Jail, where he bonded out soon thereafter.

Later that day, Brandon’s attorney, Dan Kitchens, called Det. Fernando asking
about the charges against Brandon. Det. Fernando responded that Brandon was
charged with aggravated assault and shooting into an occupied motor vehicle.
Brandon then turned himself in to the BPD, was arrested, and transported to the
Lincoln County Jail. He bonded out soon thereafter.

On February 26, 2022, Det. Fernando sent a document preservation letter to

the Cases’ phone carrier, C-Spire, demanding that it preserve all data from the Cases’
phones and other electronic devices on January 24, 2022. Det. Fernando then served
a subpoena duces tecum and search warrant on C-Spire, which, on August 2, 2022,
produced documents reflecting the data. Call logs show that Brandon and Gregory
spoke multiple times on January 24, 2022, between 7:29 p.m. and 7:58 p.m.
According to Mr. Gibson, the alleged confrontation by the Cases occurred at 7:27
p.m.

III. Summary of the Evidence Collected by Det. Fernando.

In just over a month, Det. Fernando had compiled significant evidence against
Brandon and Gregory Case. Det. Fernando’s evidence included:

1) BPD and C-Spire call logs, in addition to the statement by

Officer Henderson, showing that the Cases had called 911 to
report suspicious African American(s) driving in the
neighborhood and that, once Officer Henderson stated he would
send a police officer to the scene, Gregory “quickly replied ‘no
that’s ok I’ll call back if there’s a problem.’” The call logs also
show that Gregory was driving the white truck that allegedly cut
15
Mr. Gibson’s vehicle off, nearly forcing it into a ditch. This
evidence showed that Gregory and Brandon Case had
encountered Mr. Gibson, whom they described only as a black
male (and never mentioned he was wearing a FedEx uniform).

2) Mr. Gibson’s identification of Brandon Case as the shooter

during a properly conducted photo lineup.

3) Mr. Gibson’s statements to FedEx management, to Officer

Montgomery, and to Det. Fernando consistently describing the
January 24 incident and alleging that shots were fired at him and
his vehicle by a white, bearded man standing in the road on Jr.
Trail, who Mr. Gibson later came to believe was Brandon Case
based on the photo lineup and the Cases calling 911 around the
time of the incident to report suspicious black male(s) in a
vehicle on Junior Trail.

4) The MBI Report showing that Mr. Gibson’s vehicle, along

with several boxes inside it, were struck with at least three
projectiles (bullets), most of which pierced the van’s exterior.

5) Brandon Case’s admission that he was the individual

standing in the road on Junior Trail as Mr. Gibson was trying to
drive away from Gregory’s white truck.

6) FedEx supervisor Crecca Williams’s statement describing

how, while on the phone with Mr. Gibson during the incident, he
yelled “they are shooting at me!”, and that she heard gunshots in
the background during the call.

7) FedEx manager Ernie Kelly’s statement that Mr. Gibson,

shortly after reaching safety on January 24, 2022, reported to him
that a Caucasian male had just fired a handgun at him and his
vehicle moments earlier as he was chased by a white pickup
truck.

8) The statement of FedEx manager Candice Welch

confirming that Mr. Gibson was doing his job; he was delivering
a package to 417 Junior Trail when a Caucasian male allegedly
fired shots at Mr. Gibson’s vehicle.

16
 9) A FedEx accident report and photographs showing the
bullet holes caused by projectiles (bullets) striking Mr. Gibson’s
vehicle, which had no bullet holes prior to January 24, 2022.

10) The discovery of 16 firearms, including several assault

rifles, ammunition, and several high-capacity ammo clips in
Brandon’s trailer two days after the incident.

With this evidence alone, at a minimum, the prosecution had a significant case
against Brandon and Gregory Case before the prosecutors conducted their own
investigation or obtained additional evidence.

IV. The Prosecution of State v. Case et al., No. 22-cr-158 in the Lincoln
County Circuit Court.

A. Det. Fernando Provides the D.A.’s Office with a Complete Copy of His
Investigation File, and the D.A.’s Office Turns Over its Only Copy to
Defense Counsel.

In or around June 2022, Det. Fernando delivered a copy of his complete

investigation file to the Lincoln County D.A.’s Office by dropping it off to “Kee-
Kee,” a secretary at the D.A.’s Office, and “Damian,” an investigator at the D.A.’s
Office. Nothing was unusual about his manner of delivery. Det. Fernando had
previously produced his investigative files to the Lincoln County D.A.’s Office by
leaving a copy with Kee-Kee. All evidence collected during Det. Fernando’s
investigation was included in the file, which contained over two hundred pages of
documents, 16 compact discs, and several flash drives. In particular, the video/audio
recording of Det. Fernando’s meeting with Mr. Gibson at the BPD on January 26,
2022, was included on a compact disc labeled “Disc 10 Gibson Interview
01/25/2022.”

Each of the sixteen (16) compact discs included in Det. Fernando’s file was
numbered, like the video from Det. Fernando’s interview with Mr. Gibson. Thus,
had Det. Fernando failed to provide a disc to the D.A.’s Office (which he did not),
the D.A. attorney(s) should have quickly discovered an incomplete sequence of
discs. Det. Fernando’s file also included an index of its contents and a summary of
his investigation.

17
 The only evidence Det. Fernando did not deliver was any evidence not in his
possession. For example, despite Det. Fernando’s request, the BPD’s IT department
was unable to download/retrieve certain bodycam footage. But because at least two
officers (Det. Fernando and other BPD officers) were present at all, or nearly all
times during the investigation, the substance of most missing bodycam video was
captured by another bodycam(s).

Later in the discovery phase of the prosecution against the Cases,

Brookhaven’s D.A. investigator, Damian, advised Det. Fernando that the D.A.’s
Office had turned over to defense counsel its only copy of Det. Fernando’s file for
inspecting and copying. Damian advised Det. Fernando that, when the file was
returned to the D.A.’s Office, it was allegedly “not the same.” Det. Fernando
understood Damian to mean that defense counsel returned the file organized
differently than it was upon its production to defense counsel. But at no point prior
to trial was Det. Fernando told that the file was missing any evidence after defense
counsel returned it to the D.A.’s Office.6

On November 15, 2022, a Lincoln County Grand Jury indicted Brandon and
Gregory Case for attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and unlawfully
shooting a firearm into a motor vehicle (against Brandon only). The Grand Jury thus
determined that the evidence it saw and heard established probable cause that the
Cases had committed these crimes. Their trial was set to begin approximately nine
months later, in August 2023.

6
In our many years of practicing law, we have never heard of an attorney turning over
their original documents to opposing counsel during discovery. When prosecutors produce
documents to defense counsel, they produce copies of those documents, never their original
file materials. We have never seen or heard of a prosecutor (or any attorney) producing their
original file materials to opposing counsel, as doing so carries serious risks, such as
inadvertently misplacing or losing file materials or even tampering by opposing counsel. When
we met with Det. Fernando, we extensively probed his claim that the D.A.’s Office turned its
original file over to defense counsel. Det. Fernando was adamant that Damian told him that
the D.A.’s Office turned over its original, sole copy of Det. Fernando’s file to defense counsel,
and Damian said they retuned the file “not the same” to the D.A.’s Office. Yet, even after the
D.A.’s Office recognized that the file “was not the same” upon its return, it never asked Det.
Fernando to provide another copy of his original file, nor to our knowledge did the D.A.’s
Office ask defense counsel questions about the file’s condition upon its return.

18
 B. Det. Fernando’s Cross-Examination At Trial.

During trial, the prosecution called Det. Fernando to testify about his
investigation. During cross-examination, Brandon’s defense attorney, Mr. Kitchens,
asked Det. Fernando if he had a copy of the video or audio from his January 25, 2022
interview with Mr. Gibson. Det. Fernando truthfully responded that he did and
pulled the media (compact disc #10) from his file. To Det. Fernando’s surprise, Mr.
Kitchens then alleged that the D.A.’s Office had not produced a copy of that footage
to him:

Q. [By Mr. Kitchens] And, of course, [Mr. Gibson] told you

what he said happened, right? He told you his version of what
happened?

A. [By Det. Fernando] Yes, sir.

Q. All right. Now, there's been a lot of body cam footage but
y’all didn't have them on when he was giving his account, did
you?

A. No, sir. When you come to the police station inside [] we

don’t turn the body camera on. So he was in the police station
and I was interviewing inside [sic] and we have that footage or
the video recording when he gave me a written statement.

Q. Are you telling me that his statement was recorded with

audio and video and y’all have that?

A. He gave me statement and I have to question [sic], yes, sir.

Q. Yes, sir. And that's on audio and video?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. All right. And is that from a body camera or is that from -

A. From inside the building, we have inside interview room

and we have audio and video recording.

Q. All right. And do you have that with you?

19
 A. I should have it and you probably have it, yes, sir. This
should be the one, I believe.

BY MR. KITCHENS: May I approach, Your Honor?

BY THE COURT: Yes, sir.

A. Yeah, here is the one. Sorry.

BY MR. KITCHENS: May we approach, Your Honor?

Det. Fernando thus freely admitted he possessed the video/audio from his
January 25, 2022 meeting with Mr. Gibson. He also freely and without hesitation
pulled a copy of the video/audio from his file. Det. Fernando’s testimony and actions
in response to Mr. Kitchens’ questions were entirely consistent with his belief that
defense counsel had received a copy of the footage because it was part of the file he
turned over to the D.A.’s Office; he made no effort to obfuscate or hide the evidence.

After the above questioning, defense counsel (Messrs. Kitchens and Stubbs)
and District Attorney Dee Bates approached the bench, where Messrs. Kitchens and
Stubbs claimed they had never seen the video footage. D.A. Bates angrily (and
falsely) suggested that Det. Fernando withheld the evidence, even though Mr.
Kitchens alleged he had asked the D.A.’s Office for that particular footage. Yet,
apparently faced with a specific request for evidence that Det. Fernando possessed
(and turned over to the D.A.’s Office), the D.A.’s Office inexplicably never
contacted Det. Fernando to ask if he possessed a copy once the D.A.’s Office learned
it did not possess a copy:

BY MR. KITCHENS: Your Honor, this hasn’t been produced.

Last week I saw some note about there might be a recording. That
was why I reached out and the District Attorney’s office
responded that there was not a recording of it. And that it was --
that originally they thought there might be but they checked into
it and there wasn't.

I'm not saying -- I'm not accusing anybody of anything wrong in

this grouping here, but apparently the thing that I specifically
asked for last week did exist and I've never seen it.

BY MR. STUBBS: I haven’t either, Judge.

20
 BY THE COURT: I doubt he has either.

BY MR. BATES: Your Honor, I have not seen it either. And for
the record, we have asked repeatedly, Mr. Kitchens asked about
it. I've called Kennis Montgomery about it. They've put us on a
-- we even, pardon my language, we even had a damn hearing
about it and I put him [Kennis Montgomery] on the stand asking
about the recordings.

BY THE COURT: Bring your tone down.

BY MR. BATES: I'm sorry. A couple of months ago I put him

on the stand because I was scared so...Your Honor, I don't know
what to say. We don't have that. We’ve asked about it a number
of times. Only thing I can do for the State of Mississippi is
apologize about this. I mean…

BY THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. KITCHENS: Your Honor, I’d just –

BY MR. STUBBS: Why -- my first thing, Judge, would be a little

bit different. Why was he hiding it? Why did he keep it from
us?

(Emphasis added.)

Note that the issue of the “missing” evidence is suddenly characterized by Mr.
Stubbs as having been hidden from defense counsel by Det. Fernando, despite no
evidence supporting that allegation. In fact, there was no evidence showing that Det.
Fernando had failed to turn it over to the D.A.’s Office, whether purposeful or not.
When Mr. Stubbs alleged that Det. Fernando had hidden or withheld the video
evidence from defendants, the only facts established at the time were that: (a) the
video existed; (b) Det. Fernando had a copy of the video in his file (which he made
no effort to hide); and (c) the D.A.’s Office alleged it never received a copy of the
video.

Yet Mr. Stubbs alleged that Det. Fernando “hid[]” and “kept” the video
“from” defendants with zero evidence to support that claim. Suddenly, the
21
attorneys turned the focus of wrongdoing from the defendants charged with
attempted murder to the Detective who built the case resulting in the indictment and
prosecution.

Mr. Bates’ sudden and unsupported attack on Det. Fernando lacks common
sense. It assumes Det. Fernando had a reason to hide the video. Yet neither Mr.
Stubbs nor any of the other attorneys ever even speculated why Det. Fernando would
be motivated to “hide” the video evidence, which provided no exculpatory or new
evidence. It was duplicative of Mr. Gibson’s prior, consistent written statements.

Also notable is D.A. Bates’s statement that he asked Officer Montgomery

about the video and even allegedly “put him on the stand” to ask about it, but never
claimed he asked Det. Fernando for the video (because he did not). Det. Fernando
has steadfastly and truthfully maintained that the D.A.’s Office did not contact him
asking for this or any other evidence before the first trial, and the above testimony
does not indicate otherwise.

The Bench meeting continued:

BY THE COURT: Beats me, Mr. Stubbs. I don't know.

BY MR. BATES: Kept it from us, too.

(Emphasis added.)

At this point, even the D.A. had joined Mr. Stubbs’ unsupported allegation
that Det. Fernando “kept” the video from the D.A.’s office. Yet there exists no
evidence supporting that allegation.

The Bench meeting continued:

BY THE COURT: What do y’all want to do?

BY MR. KITCHENS: I mean, I don't think we can do anything

until we've seen it. You know, we may have a motion but I don't
even know -- this might be -- he might not have actually recorded
it. I mean, I don't even know what it is.

BY MR. BATES: I don't know what it is. I can't -- I can't --

22
 BY THE COURT: Well, I'm asking you, what are you asking
for?

BY MR. KITCHENS: A recess to look at it.

The Court then granted a recess so defense counsel could review the video of
Mr. Gibson’s interview with Det. Fernando. Upon returning from the brief recess,
the attorneys resumed their Bench meeting with the Judge. Importantly, defense
counsel, after watching the video, never even tried to argue that it contained
exculpatory evidence, otherwise helped their case, or contradicted other evidence
(which is unsurprising given that the substance of the videotaped meeting mirrors
the information Mr. Gibson provided in his three written statements, all of which
provided a consistent account of the January 24, 2022 alleged violent crimes
committed against him).

Regardless, the Judge, apparently adopting attorneys Kitchens’s, Stubbs’s,

and Bates’s unfounded speculation, determined—based on no evidence—that Det.
Fernando was the culprit and had withheld the video from the D.A.’s Office:

BY THE COURT: All right. Since I started practicing law in

1993 the policy of the Fourteenth Circuit Court District
Attorney’s office has always been an open file policy, which
works great, except for the fact that the State of Mississippi can
only turn over evidentiary items to defense counsel if they are
provided with those items. I don't know when this case was
indicted. I don't have it in front of me. I can’t remember it. It
really doesn’t matter. The bottom line is, this file should have
been turned over to the DA’s office prior to the indictment. And
by file I mean the entire file, including a video recorded
statement of the victim, which was also requested by defense to
the DA’s office. Mr. Bates acknowledges that. He acknowledges
that he was told that it didn’t exist.7 And lo and behold here we
are on the second day of trial and we find out something that

7
It is unclear from the record what facts the Judge relied on when stating that D.A. Bates
“was told that [the video] didn’t exist.” Det. Fernando certainly never told D.A. Bates that the
video did not exist, and his testimony fully supports this fact. If Det. Fernando had told D.A.
Bates the video did not exist, he certainly would not have freely and unflinchingly told Mr.
Kitchens it did exist, that he had a copy, and pulled it from his file seconds after Mr. Kitchens
asked about it.
23
these attorneys have been looking for at least a week and
potentially months is actually in your file.

Mr. Fernando, you understand you’ve got to turn your entire file
over to Mr. Bates’ office for him to be able to prosecute these
cases. Do you understand that?

BY THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

BY THE COURT: So you come out with a video of a statement

that nobody has ever seen before. And who had possession of
that?

BY THE WITNESS: I had possession.

BY THE COURT: That’s right. And was there any way for Mr.
Bates to know about it or Mr. Stubbs or Mr. Kitchens if you
didn’t turn it over to Mr. Bates?

BY THE WITNESS: No, sir.

BY THE COURT: You understand how the system doesn't work

when that happens?

BY THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

BY THE COURT: I want you to go through your file and make

sure that everything in your file is in possession of Mr. Bates,
and, by osmosis, defense counsel. Do you understand that?

BY THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

BY THE COURT: Are there any questions?

…

BY MR. STUBBS: Just briefly. Detective Fernando, did you turn

over all of this information to the grand jury?

BY THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

24
 BY MR. STUBBS: You're telling this judge that you actually
turned all of this information over to the District Attorney's office
to present to the grand jury and they had it?

BY THE WITNESS: To my knowledge, yes, sir. But now I have

here what I thought I gave to them.

BY THE COURT: Yeah. I don't think there's any question but

that he did not turn this over to the District Attorney's office.

BY MR. STUBBS: Well, that's what I was getting at, Judge.

BY THE COURT: Yeah. I don't believe that -- Mr. Bates, have

you ever seen this before today?

BY MR. BATES: No, Your Honor.

…

(Emphasis added.)

Contrary to the Judge’s assumption, Detective Fernando never admitted to

failing to turn the video over to the D.A.’s Office. Instead, he stated that, “to his
knowledge,” he had provided the video to the D.A., as well as to the Grand Jury. He
then, however, stated inarticulately, “But now I have here what I thought I gave to
them,” as though he might not have turned it over because he possessed a copy. But
Det. Fernando kept a copy of everything he did turn over to the D.A.’s Office. So,
by possessing the video, that fact is evidence that he did turn it over, not evidence
that he did not turn it over. English is Det. Fernando’s second language and,
regrettably, when the Judge commented that “I don’t think there’s any
question…that he did not turn this over to the District Attorney’s office,” Det.
Fernando did not correct the record because he was stunned into silence and was not
asked a question. The Judge was instead expressing his belief, with no evidentiary
foundation, that Det. Fernando must not have provided the video to the D.A.’s Office
despite his initial testimony stating the opposite, i.e., that he did provide it to the
D.A.’s Office.

Shortly after, without either defense attorney first claiming that the video
provided exculpatory or even new information, the defense moved for a mistrial,
which the Judge granted, declaring that the case would be scheduled for a new trial
based on the late production of a non-exculpatory video interview from which all
25
pertinent information was contained in Mr. Gibson’s three prior, consistent
statements describing the alleged January 24, 2022 shooting incident.8 The Court set
the new trial date for October 14, 2024.

On March 7, 2024, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case entirely,

arguing “the mistrial declared on August 17, 2023 was clearly the fault of the
Detective/Investigator for the [C]ity of Brookhaven. He admitted on the witness
stand that he had failed to provide certain information to the defense.” State v. Case,
No. 22-cr-158 at [Dkt. 140 ⁋⁋4-5]. This statement is false, as explained above.
(Unsurprisingly, this allegation does not cite any evidence supporting it.)

Defendants’ motion to dismiss also argued that, after the mistrial, the State
produced additional documents for the first time. Id. ⁋⁋6-7. But the motion did not
allege Det. Fernando had intentionally withheld the document productions from
the State, nor did defense counsel argue that any of these late-produced documents
contained exculpatory evidence or provided information helpful to the defense.
Instead, defense counsel argued that the State’s mere delay itself provided sufficient
cause to dismiss the attempted murder and related charges. See id. ⁋⁋6-10.

On September 30, 2024, the court held an evidentiary hearing. A transcript

from that hearing does not support the allegation that Det. Fernando “intentionally
withheld evidence from Defendants.” It instead supports Det. Fernando’s consistent
testimony that he delivered his entire file to the D.A.’s Office in/around June 2022,
which included all evidence in his possession.

During the September 30, 2024 hearing, Det. Fernando endured a lengthy
cross-examination in which he was attacked by both defense attorneys and new
Lincoln County District Attorney, Brendon Adams. Throughout the inquisition, Det.
Fernando never wavered from his testimony that he had delivered his complete file
to the D.A.’s Office. For example:

Q. [By Mr. Kitchens] Okay. I believe there were also some social
media -- some printouts from social media, Facebook maybe -- I

8
Defense counsel also argued that a mistrial was appropriate because Detective
Fernando, in response to a question whether he found a handgun during his search of
Brandon’s trailer, stated he found several long guns but no handgun, despite a motion in limine
excluding evidence of the discovery of several long guns in Brandon’s trailer. However, as the
Judge noted earlier, such testimony was not grounds for a mistrial, and the testimony was cured
through an instruction to the jury.
26
 don't know -- that was produced to us after that mistrial that had
been in your file.

A. [By Det. Fernando] It was in the file.

Q. Before the trial?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. It’s your testimony that that was produced before the mistrial?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. All right.
…

Mr. Gibson’s above-referenced social media posts merely set forth the alleged
facts of the January 24, 2022 incident, provided no exculpatory evidence, and
mirrored the consistent statements he gave to FedEx, Officer Montgomery, and Det.
Fernando, all of which were produced to defense counsel.

The cross-examination by Mr. Kitchens continued:

Q. Detective Fernando, before the mistrial you testified in this

courtroom about discovery issues, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And then again at the trial, right? After the mistrial you were
asked about -- have you produced everything, right?

A. Yeah.

Q. There was some testimony from you about that on that day,
right? When there was a mistrial. Right? I’m sorry. You just have
to answer out loud for the court reporter.

A. At that time I said, yes, I produced everything to my

knowledge.

27
Q. Now, we talked a lot about body camera footage.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Before the mistrial there was no body camera footage from

you that was produced, correct?

A. Yeah. My body camera footage was there, sir.

Q. You -- no body cam --

A. It was a thumb drive. Yes. It was a thumb drive.

Q. Let me back up. You had on a body camera during this period
of time. You wore one, right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You wore one when you went to the Honda dealership, right?

A. Yes.

Q. That was not -- and there's a short video from that day at the
Honda dealership on the 25th, but that was not given to us before
the first, right?

A. It was there, sir.

Q. Where?

A. It was in the file, should be.

Q. Okay. Well, if it was in your file, that doesn't mean it was in

mine. It was not produced until after the mistrial, right?

A. No. To my calculation, I -- they should have had everything

in my file.

Q. Your body camera footage?

28
 A. Yes, sir.

Q. All right. That body camera footage of that encounter at Greg

Case’s house was not produced until after the trial, right?

A. No, sir. It was produced before.

Q. The footage at Brandon Case’s trailer was produced before

Officer Evans -- Officer Evans and you at Brandon Case's trailer
on the 25th but not up at Greg Case's house talking to the
cleaning lady. That was not produced. Do you disagree?

A. To my knowledge, I produced, sir.

Defense counsel was not alone in their attacks on Det. Fernando. They were
joined by District Attorney Adams, who also attacked Det. Fernando, claiming he
failed to produce certain bodycam footage that, when he (Fernando) requested it
from BPD’s IT department, he was told the footage could not be located:

Q. [By Mr. Adams] And you testified before the trial that you
turned over everything, didn't you?

A. [By Det. Fernando] Yes, sir.

Q. And that wasn't true.

A. Wasn't true because I didn’t know that --

Q. I don't want to hear that you didn’t know about it. You’re the
case agent. The buck stops with you. Did you turn over
everything before the trial? Yes or no.

A. No.

Q. All right. Then we had -- then we had a mistrial, and the judge
told you to turn over everything. Did you?

A. I gave everything I had, but I didn’t know some of them exist.

29
 Q. You are the case agent.

A. Yes.

Q. The buck stops with you. Did you turn over everything? Yes
or no.

A. No. [Referring to bodycam footage he had been told no longer

existed by BPD’s IT department.]

Q. And you talked about how you called Christopher to get some
more information; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you realize that last week I made one phone call, and I got
stuff that you didn't even know about? But you’re the case agent,
right?

A. Yes.

District Attorney Adams, however, failed to call “Christopher” to the stand to

explain why he could not locate the footage when Det. Fernando requested it, but
was suddenly able to locate it when D.A. Adams requested it. Det. Fernando is not
an information technology specialist, nor can he control what the BPD’s IT
department does or does not do. He can only request the bodycam footage, which he
did prior to turning his file over to the D.A.’s Office. He was told by BPD’s IT
department that the footage could not be recovered. Regardless, defense counsel
never argued that the late-produced bodycam footage was exculpatory or provided
probative evidence regarding the defendants’ innocence (or was even pertinent to
any disputed fact).

District Attorney Adams then twisted Detective Fernando’s words about

seeking a second opinion from ADA Kelly after Chief Earl improperly asked Det.
Fernando to have Mr. Gibson drive critical evidence—the rented FedEx van bearing
the bullet holes and projectile fragments—from Ridgeland to Brookhaven. Det.
Fernando hesitated due to his valid concern that moving the vehicle would
contaminate the evidence and raise chain of custody issues. When attempting to
explain these facts to Mr. Gibson’s supervisor, Ms. Williams, Det. Fernando
30
inartfully used the word “manipulate” when attempting to describe his (correct)
belief that, if he asked ADA Kelly how to process the vehicle, she would order him
not to move it (which she did, and correctly ordered Det. Fernando to have the MBI
process the vehicle/evidence, which it processed in Ridgeland so as not to disturb or
otherwise alter the evidence):

Q. … I believe you were meeting with D’Monterrio’s supervisor;

is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall the substance of that conversation?

A. Yes.

Q. Tell us about that.

A. Conversation about my captain of investigation saying that -

ask me to tell them to bring the vehicle to process at the BPD. I
disagreed. So I had to get the district captain’s opinion what – of
how I want to handle it. So that's why I was saying that –

Q. Just go ahead and use the words that you used.

A. I said “manipulate.”

Q. You said you had to wait for Kelly to get back because you
could manipulate her better.

A. Yes.

Q. And then started laughing. Isn’t that right?

A. That was meaning convince her to help me to process the

vehicle.

Q. Do you know what manipulate means?

A. Yes. I wasn't thinking about that at that time.

31
 Q. Okay.

This is just one example of how the prosecuting attorney, instead of

prosecuting the defendants, sought to prosecute Det. Fernando by, among other
things, taking advantage of his broken English and twisting his words. As detailed
above, Det. Fernando did not seek to “manipulate” anyone; he sought to recover
critical evidence—the vehicle Mr. Gibson was driving when Brandon Case allegedly
fired his handgun at him—the correct way, not the way suggested by Chief Earl, i.e.,
having Mr. Gibson drive the vehicle from Ridgeland to Brookhaven, which would
have raised serious issues evidentiary issues that were easily avoidable.9

And although the defense attorneys during the September 30, 2024 hearing
occasionally succeeded in having Det. Fernando say what they wanted to hear, like
having him admit that he did not turn over certain evidence that he did not possess
in his file—such as body camera footage that he tried to obtain from the BPD’s IT
department but was told it did not exist—Det. Fernando always returned to his point
that he provided the D.A.’s Office with a copy of his entire file (because that is what
happened).

The defense attorneys and District Attorney all went into the September 30,
2024 hearing attempting to establish only one (false) point: That Det. Fernando had
been hiding evidence. The attorneys, including the prosecution, took advantage of
his broken English to elicit testimony supporting their beliefs, which resulted in the
dismissal with prejudice. The District Attorney’s Office even had a lawyer from its
office, Mr. Byrd, dedicate his September 30, 2024 argument to attempting to pin the
entire blame on Det. Fernando for the late-produced evidence, despite the fact Det.
Fernando had turned over his entire file to the D.A.’s Office over two years prior.

Thus, assuming for the sake of argument that Det. Fernando had failed to
produce his entire file (which he did not), the prosecution had access to every single
document it belatedly produced, as evidenced by the fact that it was the D.A.’s
Office—not Det. Fernando—that produced those documents. Regardless, the
September 30, 2024, hearing made clear that District Attorney Adams was much less
concerned with seeking justice for the victim, Mr. Gibson, than he was with foisting

9
Detective Fernando’s decision to ask the District Captain about how to retrieve the
evidence was justified when the MBI, who ultimately collected the evidence, went to
Ridgeland to conduct its forensics. The MBI, like Det. Fernando, understood that the vehicle
was critical evidence in a serious criminal investigation and should not have been moved until
processed.
32
blame on Det. Fernando and, by extension, advocating for the Cases to escape a trial
for their alleged crimes. But Det. Fernando never intentionally withheld anything.
And, critically, defense counsel never even argued the evidence they belatedly
received was exculpatory or even pertinent to any disputed fact. They were never
materially prejudiced, much less to any degree warranting dismissal.

By Order dated October 11, 2024, the Court continued the second trial date to
a “mutually agreeable date to be determined by the parties and the Court.” 10 [Dkt.
159.] The Court, 87 days later (on January 6, 2025), then dismissed the case with
prejudice.

Defendants successfully had their credible attempted murder case dismissed

on a pure technicality, and their efforts were aided by a District Attorney evidently
more focused on casting blame on Det. Fernando than seeking justice for the victim,
Mr. Gibson. Consequently, two Brookhaven residents, who had admitted they
attempted to stop Mr. Gibson from leaving Junior Trail (denying only that Brandon
fired a handgun at Mr. Gibson’s vehicle, despite the evidence to the contrary),
escaped a trial on the merits for allegedly attempting to murder an African American
male wearing a FedEx uniform after he merely delivered a package into a mailbox.

The truth is that the State had a strong case. The criminal charges were
endorsed by the Grand Jury. The defendants admitted to nearly all the facts alleged
by Mr. Gibson, denying only that Brandon Case fired shots at Mr. Gibson’s vehicle.
Indeed, the Cases admitted to confronting and pursuing a “suspicious vehicle”
occupied by a black male on Junior Trail around 7:30 p.m. on January 24, 2022. The
victim, Mr. Gibson, was on the phone with his FedEx Supervisor, Ms. Williams, as
the shots were fired, and stated she heard the gunshots as Mr. Gibson yelled,
“They’re shooting at me!” The vehicle had at least three bullet holes that did not
exist on the morning of January 24, 2022. The FedEx vehicle left Ridgeland the
morning of January 24, 2022, free from bullet holes and, upon its return, had at least
three bullet holes. Those bullet holes did not spontaneously create themselves;
someone discharged a firearm at the vehicle. And, tellingly, when the Cases
contacted 911 to describe the “suspicious” black males in a vehicle on Junior Trail,
they never reported that the “suspicious vehicle” exhibited bullet holes (because it

10
Defense counsel thus lacked not only an argument that the allegedly withheld evidence
exculpated their clients but also had no basis to argue that the late production caused them
material prejudice by denying them sufficient time to analyze the evidence and prepare for
trial.
33
did not at that time). Those bullets pierced the vehicle and could have killed Mr.
Gibson. The evidence of the Cases’ guilt was significant by any measure.

And, critically, Det. Fernando had zero reason to intentionally withhold

evidence. Even if Det. Fernando had somehow been motivated to hide evidence (he
was not, and defense counsel never argued otherwise), nothing allegedly withheld
harmed the prosecution nor helped the defendants. And nearly all the allegedly
withheld evidence was duplicative of notes, statements, and other evidence that was
indisputably produced to defense counsel on a timely basis.

And, if District Attorney Dee Bates was, as he claimed during the first trial,
desperately searching for the allegedly missing evidence, why did he not contact
Det. Fernando asking for it? Despite Mr. Bates’ claim that he was “scared” about
missing evidence, even allegedly putting Kennis Montgomery “on the stand” (which
he didn’t; there was no hearing where Kennis Montgomery testified prior to trial),
why did Mr. Bates not contact Det. Fernando, the lead detective on the case? Det.
Fernando was, astonishingly, never contacted by Mr. Bates or anyone else at the
D.A.’s Office asking about the alleged missing video giving rise to the mistrial.

And if the video was not provided to the D.A.’s Office (which it was), an
attorney should have quickly recognized its absence because Det. Fernando’s file
included 16 sequentially numbered compact discs containing evidence, with the
alleged missing video numbered “Disc 10.” Had “Disc 10” been missing from the
file, any attorney reviewing the file would have quickly recognized that the sequence
of compact discs was missing disc number 10, thus leaving a gap between discs 9
and 11.

Det. Fernando, a hard-working, highly successful detective with a pristine

record of 20+ years of commendable service not only to the public, but also to the
law enforcement community through his work with the Mississippi Law
Enforcement Officers’ Training Program, became the villain while the actual
criminal defendants, the Cases, walked away from attempted murder and conspiracy
charges without ever facing the judgment of a jury of their peers. It shocks the
conscience that such a serious, high-profile case would be dismissed based on the
alleged concealment of evidence when the alleged concealed evidence was not only
ultimately provided to defense counsel with no impending trial date (thereby curing
any alleged prejudice to the defendants), but the evidence in question did not
substantively benefit the defendants to any degree.

34
 In our combined 60+ years of practicing law in multiple states, we have never
seen a case remotely resembling this one. This is the first prosecution we have seen
or heard of where defense counsel and the D.A. effectively joined forces to lay blame
on a Detective to essentially exonerate defendants accused of attempted murder.
None of the allegedly “hidden” evidence (which was all disclosed before the Court
set a new trial date) was exculpatory. Dismissing a prosecution for attempted murder
charges based on the withholding of evidence was the most drastic of all measures,
usually reserved for instances where the evidence, intentionally withheld, once it
comes to light, exculpates the defendant(s), such as exculpatory DNA evidence or
other objective evidence highly probative of the defendant’s innocence. What
happened here was nothing like that. Not even close.

Miss. R. Crim. P. 17.9(b) provides the framework to remedy the prosecution’s

alleged failure to disclose evidence during trial and provides that

the court shall: (1) Grant the defense a reasonable opportunity to

interview the newly discovered witness and/or examine the newly
produced documents, photographs or other evidence. (2) If, after such
opportunity, the defense claims unfair surprise or undue prejudice and
seeks a continuance or mistrial, the court shall, in the interest of justice
and absent unusual circumstances, exclude the evidence, grant a
continuance for a period of time reasonably necessary for the defense
to meet the non-disclosed evidence, or grant a mistrial. (3) The court
shall not be required to grant either a continuance or mistrial for such a
discovery violation if the prosecution withdraws its efforts to introduce
such evidence.

Dismissal with prejudice is not mentioned, and the mere exclusion of late-
produced evidence is considered an “extreme” remedy for non/late-disclosures of
evidence, requiring not only a showing that the prosecution purposefully withheld
the evidence, but did so to gain a tactical advantage. See, e.g., Jones v. State, 283 So.
3d 64, 66 (Miss. 2019) (held that excluding a witness was an abuse of discretion
because there was no evidence that the discovery violation was motivated by a desire
to gain a tactical advantage and reiterating that,“[i]n the context of discovery
violations, exclusion of evidence is a radical sanction that should rarely be used”);
Mohamed v. State, 323 So. 3d 532, 543 (Miss. App. 2021) (“The weight of the
sanction should be based on the motivation of the offending party in violating the
discovery rule.”).

35
 Thus, the test for whether a court should merely exclude late-produced
evidence—a far less serious remedy for discovery violations than dismissing the case
with prejudice—requires a showing that the prosecution deliberately withheld
evidence to gain a tactical advantage. Defense counsel never even argued that Det.
Fernando withheld the evidence to “gain a tactical advantage.” Nor could they. The
late-produced evidence provided no advantage to defendants or disadvantage to the
State, and was largely duplicative of other, timely produced evidence. There was no
tactical advantage, and the allegedly withheld evidence was not probative of the
Cases’ innocence. Consequently, defense counsel failed to meet its burden for
having the late-produced evidence so much as excluded, much less the entire
prosecution dismissed with prejudice. Instead, both sides simply attacked Det.
Fernando, resulting in an apparently frustrated Judge dismissing the case entirely.

Det. Fernando was an easy target. He does not look or speak like 99% of the
Brookhaven population. It is deeply troubling that all the litigants laid the blame on
a dark-skinned minority foreigner who speaks poor English (Det. Fernando), while
the victim, an African American, was denied justice based on allegedly withheld
evidence having no bearing on the (Caucasian) defendants’ guilt. Dismissing a case
with such significant inculpatory evidence was only made possible because the
attorneys, including the D.A. and other attorneys in his office, focused their efforts
on attacking Det. Fernando, whose broken English left him struggling to defend and
explain himself, especially when being attacked from all sides.

V. Det. Fernando’s Termination:

On January 7, 2025, the Brookhaven Board of Aldermen voted to terminate

Det. Fernando’s employment “due to reports from prior and current job activities.”
The reason for his termination, however, was clear: He was terminated as a direct
result of the dismissal of State v. Case, which was unjustly blamed on Det. Fernando.

Before his termination, Det. Fernando had twice attempted to tender his
resignation so he could retire after his March 2023 knee surgery left him in
significant chronic pain affecting his ability to perform his job duties. He first
tendered his resignation to Chief Collins in June 2023. Chief Collins, however,
pleaded with Det. Fernando to delay his retirement until the trial of Brandon and
Gregory Case concluded. Det. Fernando reluctantly agreed. He then submitted a
second letter of resignation on January 7, 2025, requesting that he take retirement
effective January 31, 2025.

36
 The Board of Aldermen, through its attorney Bobby Moak, responded that
Det. Fernando could either retire effective January 7, 2025, or he would be
terminated. Det. Fernando rejected the offer because he had done nothing wrong and
refused to behave as though he had. The Board then voted to terminate his
employment in an inexplicable decision given that it had just offered to let him retire.

However, in July 2025, the Board of Aldermen, after receiving evidence

establishing the true facts, corrected its wrongful termination by rescinding its
termination, reinstating Detective Fernando’s employment, and allowing him to
resign from the BPD on his own terms, effective January 31, 2025, with full back
pay and retirement benefits.

VI. BPD Continues to Rely on Det. Fernando’s Testimony for Criminal

Prosecutions.

Despite its false claims that Det. Fernando had intentionally withheld
evidence, the Lincoln County District Attorney’s Office still calls on him to testify
as a witness in its prosecutions. For example, the D.A.’s Office asked Det. Fernando
to testify on March 18, 2025, in the case of State v. Zayrick Keune Taylor, No. 23-
cr-31 (Lincoln County Circuit Court). If the D.A.’s Office genuinely believed Det.
Fernando had committed the malfeasance it alleged during State v. Case, it would
have never again used him as a witness since he would be considered inherently
unreliable. Yet the D.A.’s Office has continued to call him as a witness to testify in
criminal matters, thus demonstrating how even the D.A.’s Office believes he is a
reliable, truthful witness.11 Yet, when it came to the Cases, the D.A.’s Office made
every effort to propagate the false notion that Det. Fernando had intentionally
withheld evidence.

And despite Det. Fernando’s correct belief that he was initially treated
unjustly by the City of Brookhaven, he continues to graciously testify on behalf of

11
If the D.A.’s Office sincerely believed Det. Fernando was an untruthful witness, it
would be ethically prohibited from calling him to testify under Miss. R. Prof. C. 3.3(a)(4).
Further, once a law enforcement officer has been labeled a dishonest witness, his/her career is
over. Under Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S. Ct. 763, 31 L. Ed. 2d 104 (1972),
prosecutors are obligated to disclose information that could impeach their detective-witness’s
credibility. Under Giglio, a prosecutor’s failure to disclose such information, including
evidence of dishonesty, could violate a defendant’s right to a fair trial under the Due Process
Clause. The broader implications of Giglio have led to the development of “Giglio-impaired”
designations for officers whose credibility may be questioned in court. This designation
severely limits the officer’s ability to testify, a critical component of their duties.
37
the prosecution even after his unwarranted termination (and prior to his
reinstatement/retirement). Indeed, his testimony in State v. Taylor helped put that
defendant behind bars for life plus 40 years. His sole goal is, and has always been,
to see justice done, which is one reason he now fights to clear his name and
reputation developed throughout his life and during his more than 20 years serving
honorably in law enforcement.

38