The Florida Bar
650 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300

Subject: Violation of Chapter 4 , Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules 4-3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal; 4-3.4, Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel;
4-3.8, Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor; 4-4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others; 4-8.4, Misconduct.

Offending Attorney: David Rimmer, Esq.
Member, Florida Bar Association
(Assistant State Prosecutor)

Sir or Madam:

Please accept for processing my formal complaint regarding the above-referenced attorney, David Rimmer. The offending attorney has caused the legal
and prosecutorial professions in the State of Florida to fall under disrepute through his overt and multiple violations of the Florida Bar Association’s Rules
of Professional Conduct. Since the press has covered the Ricky Chavis and Derek King trials extensively and his conduct is a matter of public record, I will
only briefly outline my complaint:

Mr. Rimmer willfully presented what he believed to be perjured testimony during the murder trial of Mr. Richard Chavis. [bold centered heading]

During Mr. Chavis’ trial, Mr. Rimmer offered as witnesses Derek and Alex King, two co-defendants in the proceeding. Both witnesses testified that Mr.
Chavis committed the physical act of murder against Terry King. Mr. Rimmer then tried Derek and Alex King, and alleged during that trial that these two
individuals committed the physical act of murder against Terry King. Subsequent to the trial and verdicts in both cases, Mr. Rimmer participated in media
interviews, where he stated unequivocally that he never believed that Mr. Chavis committed the physical act of murder upon Mr. Terry King, but instead
was responsible for encouraging said act. Mr. Rimmer utilized witnesses who he believed were committing perjury for the sole purpose of obtaining a
criminal conviction against Mr. Chavis.

Accordingly, Mr. Rimmer deliberately and willfully violated Rule 4-3.3 by presenting false evidence to the jury in the Chavis trail, and failing to disclose that
he was aware or believed that the evidence constituted perjured testimony. This rule, subsection (a)(4) states that a lawyer shall not “permit any
witness, including a criminal defendant to offer testimony or other evidence that the lawyer knows to be false.” Mr. Rimmer, by prosecuting Mr. Chavis on
murder charges and utilizing what Mr. Rimmer considered perjured testimony, deliberately misled the jury. Once the judge dismissed the charges against
Mr. Chavis based on a conspiracy theory, Mr. Rimmer had a duty and obligation to call for a dismissal of the remainder of the charges.

Full Investigation Warranted to Consider other Potential Violations
[bold centered heading]

In committing the acts alleged herein, Mr. Rimmer likewise violated a range of other professional responsibility and ethical rules. Specifically, under Rule
4-3.4, Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel, Mr. Rimmer was prohibited from fabricating evidence, counseling or assisting a witness to testify falsely or
offering an inducement to a witness. It is imperative that the Bar undertake a full and complete examination of Mr. Rimmer’s conduct in this regard, to
determine whether he attempted to offer an inducement for what he believed to be false testimony against Mr. Chavis.

Furthermore, Mr. Rimmer, as a prosecutor, has special responsibilities under Rule 4-3.8. Specifically, if as Mr. Rimmer claimed, he did not believe that Mr.
Chavis committed the murder under the only theory remaining once the judge refused the consideration of the conspiracy theory, Mr. Rimmer had the
obligation to terminate the prosecution and call for a dismissal. His failure to do so is a clear violation of Rule 4-3.8(a). Moreover, it appears from
comparison of the two trials, that Mr. Rimmer may have intentionally withheld exculpatory information from Mr. Chavis during that trial, in an effort to
bolster what Mr. Rimmer believed to be dishonest witnesses. Again, a full investigation of his conduct here is warranted in order to determine the extent
of his misconduct.

The Bar should comb the record in the first trial and compare it to Mr. Rimmer’s statements in the second trial to determine whether he violated Rule
4-4.1, in making false statements during either or both trials, or to either or both counsels for the defendants. Given the diametrically opposed and
conflicting theories of the case presented by Mr. Rimmer, he most likely violated this Rule.

General Misconduct [bold centered heading]

Given the bizarre nature of this case and Mr. Rimmer’s handling of it, it is likely that a range of general misconduct was committed here. Again, only with a
full and complete examination of both trial records and questioning of the involved parties, will the Bar be able to determine the full extent of Mr. Rimmer’s
misconduct.

Although Mr. Rimmer claims that the defendants Alex and Derek King were responsible for the murder of their father, he also had a duty to these
individuals, and especially to the child Alex then 12 years old, as a victim of an especially heinous sex crime (i.e., child molestation). Mr. Rimmer brought
disrepute upon the State of Florida and its citizens by treating said child as though he were an adult during cross examination related to sexual activity
with an adult defendant. Rule 4-8.4 (d) prohibits attorneys from engaging in conduct … “that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, including to
knowingly, or through callous indifference, disparage, humiliate…witnesses.” Mr. Rimmer’s routine implication throughout the Alex and Derek King trial that
Alex King was a willing participant in sexual conduct when by law he could not have been a willing participant, was designed to humiliate the witness, and
likewise was a dishonest representation to the jury.

CONCLUSION [bold centered heading]

The State Bar of Florida has a special obligation to protect citizens from unethical prosecutors. In order to ensure that the administration of justice in
Florida is fair and impartial, the State Bar should open a complete and thorough investigation of the activities in this case. If Mr. Rimmer is found to have
committed any of these violations he should be disbarred as an example to other prosecutors, and to protect the citizens of Florida from dishonest
prosecutions.


 

 

Friends,

What follows is my rebuttal to Rimmer's response which I mailed off today.

Tiffany R. Collins
Assistant Discipline Counsel
The Florida Bar
650 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300

Re: Complaint against David Harold Rimmer
File Number 2003-00, 323 (1A)

November 4, 2002

Dear Miss Collins:

I am in receipt of Mr. Rimmer's October 26, 2002 response to my formal ethics complaint and am issuing the following rebuttal to his response. Please note that my rebuttal covers the following allegations:

1. Submission of perjured testimony and false evidence.

2. Making false statements to a tribunal.

3. Disparaging a witness.

SUBMISSION OF PERJURED TESTIMONY AND FALSE EVIDENCE

Although Mr. Rimmer states that Rule 4-3.3, Rules of Professional Conduct of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, specifically states that a lawyer is prohibited only from submitting evidence that the lawyer "knows" to be false and does not concern evidence that the lawyer believes to be false and further states that the comment of this rule says that "the tribunal is responsible for assessing its probative value" the Florida Bar needs to look no further than Mr. Rimmer's post trial comments to determine that he, in fact, "knew" Derek and Alex's testimony was, in fact, perjured. According to the October 18, 2002 Pensacola News Journal article "King verdicts thrown out" by Alan Gomez which described the Court's granting Motions for New Trial and has previously been entered into evidence in this matter, Judge Frank Bell stated that after the second degree 'murder' verdicts came back in the Alex and Derek King 'murder' trial, the gag order surrounding the cases was lifted, and Mr. Rimmer was asked one question repeatedly: What would he have done if all three had been found guilty of first-degree 'murder'? And Mr. Rimmer's response: "We would have gone and asked Judge Bell to set the Ricky Chavis case aside." Clearly, this remark shows that Mr. Rimmer had absolutely no faith in the Chavis tribunal because Mr. Rimmer "knew" the boys' testimony was false.

MAKING FALSE STATEMENT TO A TRIBUNAL

Although Mr. Rimmer states correctly that he never explicitly asked the Chavis tribunal to convict Chavis of first degree 'murder' for swinging the bat, he nevertheless had a special obligation as a prosecutor to terminate the Chavis prosecution and call for a dismissal after the judge refused the consideration of the conspiracy theory and his failure to do just this should be construed as making a false statement to a tribunal. In fact, in ordering a new trial for Alex and Derek King, Judge Bell himself asked why Mr. Rimmer continued prosecuting Chavis under a theory he did not believe to be true.

DISPARAGING A WITNESS

In response to Mr. Rimmer's contention that his examination of Alex King regarding se'xual activity Alex engaged in was not disparaging or humiliating even if Alex was treated "as though he were an 'adult'," it should be noted that the Florida Legislature intentionally set forth special legal protections for trial witnesses under the age of 16 who are victims of se'xual offenses. Section 918.16(1) F.S. specifically states "in the trial of any case, civil or criminal, when any person under the age of 16. . is testifying concerning any 'sex' offense, the court shall clear the courtroom of all persons except parties to the cause and their immediate families or guardians, attorneys and their secretaries, officers of the court, jurors, newspaper reporters or broadcasters, court reporters, and, at the request of the victim, victim or witness advocates designated by the state attorney's office" and Section 960.001(1) F.S. further states that "the victim of a se'xual offense shall be informed of the right to have the courtroom cleared of certain persons as provided in s. 918.16 when the victim is testifying concerning that offense."

These statutes makes it clear beyond any doubt that the Florida legislature never meant to allow any attorney to treat any 13-year-old victim of se'xual abuse "as though he were an 'adult'" and by implying that Alex was a willing participant in se'xual activity with Mr. Chavis and by further not requesting that the testimony of this child victim of se'xual abuse be given in closed session, it is clear that Mr. Rimmer treated this child "as though he were an 'adult'" and is guilty of disparaging this witness as a result. Additionally, the Florida Bar should conduct a thorough investigation to determine if Mr. Rimmer ever even informed this child of the right to have the courtroom cleared as Mr. Rimmer was required to do by Florida Law.

As additional evidence in support of the claim that Mr. Rimmer is guilty of disparaging a witness, it should be noted that Mr. Rimmer required that Alex give his testimony at Chavis' trial while wearing handcuffs, yet allowed Derek King to give testimony at Chavis' trial without wearing handcuffs. A careful review of jail records will show that Derek King has received numerous violations and has been placed in disciplinary segregation on several occasions while in the Escambia County Jail, while Alex has had few disciplinary problems at the jail. Why this is relevant is because, from a security standpoint, the decision to require that Alex be required to give testimony at Chavis' trial wearing handcuffs made no logical sense. And a further review of the court records will show that Mr. Rimmer never even requested that Alex be allowed to testify in street clothes and without handcuffs and his failure to do so was an additional way in which Mr. Rimmer disparaged this witness.

CONCLUSION

All the evidence previously entered along with the points raised in this rebuttal should make it very clear that Mr. Rimmer has willfully and repeatedly violated numerous Rules of Professional Conduct of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and should not be allowed to continue practicing law in the State of Florida.

Sincerely,

Brian E. Oliver

CC: David Harold Rimmer, Esq.
Curtis Golden, Esq.
James Stokes, Esq.
Sharon Potter, Esq.
Jayne Weintraub, Esq.
Rev. Thomas Masters
Cathy Corry
Mary Schelich
Alan Gomez, Pensacola News Journal
Mollye Barrows, WEAR TV3
Jamie Roth, WPMI
Dana Canedy, The New York Times