Miami Twp. ordered to cover $45 million judgment in wrongful conviction case

Credit: Jim Noelker

Miami Twp. was ordered to pay a $45 million judgment in a civil lawsuit on behalf of a former detective in a wrongful conviction case.

U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Rose on Wednesday ruled in favor of former Miami Twp. police detective Scott Moore and said the township has a duty to defend Moore against the lawsuit’s claims and must pay the full amount of the verdict against him.

Roger “Dean” Gillispie in November 2022 was awarded the $45 million verdict, the highest in state history, his lawyers from Loevy & Loevy Attorneys at Law said at the time.

Attorney Michele Berry Godsey looks at Roger Dean Gillispie as he talks about his feelings after being declared a wrongfully imprisoned person Dec. 9, 2021, in Montgomery County Common Pleas Court. STAFF FILE

icon to expand image

Miami Twp. released the following statement Friday regarding Rose’s order: “Miami Township officials and counsel are evaluating all appropriate next steps including potential appellate review.”

Gillispie had been trying to clear his name for more than 30 years following his 1991 conviction for the rape and kidnapping of three women in two attacks in Miami and Harrison townships.

After spending more than 20 years in prison, he was released in 2011 through extensive efforts by the University of Cincinnati Law School’s Ohio Innocence Project and his family. Gillispie’s case was the first for the Ohio Innocence Project, and he said he was the 14th person released because of their efforts.

Gillispie was declared “a wrongfully imprisoned individual” in December 2021 in Montgomery County Common Pleas Court, which paved the way for him to file the civil suit.

The lawsuit alleged Moore did not disclose camping receipts showing Gillispie could not have committed two of the crimes because he was in Kentucky. It also claimed that Moore “contaminated the investigation by creating unfair lineup procedures, claiming a witness had made an identification when she had not, and even later saying they might not recognize Gillispie in court because he ‘dyed his hair,’” Gillispie’s attorneys wrote.

The township unsuccessfully sought a declaratory judgment, arguing that Moore was reckless and outside the scope of his employment. The township also said that if it is required to indemnify Moore, its obligation should be limited to the amounts Moore actually pays toward any final judgment against him and not the full amount.

Attorneys for Moore could not be reached for comment.

David Owen, an attorney for Gillispie, said he had no comment.

About the Author