Chris Johnson’s defense lawyers once criticized the victim’s family for seeking $1,553 from a state-sponsored victim fund, to help offset funeral home expenditures immediately after Andrea’s homicide. The family, which supported Johnson at the time, had sought the money on Johnson’s behalf. Then, on national television, one of the defense lawyers lamented that the recent trial had “bankrupted” Johnson, neglecting to mention that the primary expense he faced was likely the legal fees she and her colleagues had charged him.
Now, through a different set of lawyers, Johnson has filed suit in federal court against the Arlington County cold case detective who arrested him. The suit seeks over $15M: compensatory damages of $10M, punitive damages of $5M, and unspecified “pre-judgment interests and costs.” The suit names the detective in her individual capacity only. Although the suit focuses on statements allegedly made to the Grand Jury that Johnson deems to be false, Bobby Leonard–who testified to the same Grand Jury that Johnson had hired him to kill Andrea–is not named in the suit. Notably, Arlington County is also not named as a party in the lawsuit. The suit is brought under 42 USC 1983, which generally provides qualified immunity for officers in their individual capacities, when they are performing their duties. This makes the suit of a matter of significant public concern and debate–since taxpayers, not the detective, must pay the legal costs of defending the suit, in addition to any award or settlement. In other words, Johnson’s suit is effectively not a suit against the detective, but a suit against all of us.
It is ironic that Johnson is suing the detective who arrested him, given that he once put in writing his wish that police would “hurry up and arrest” him:
To prevail, Johnson must show, among other things, that there was no probable cause with which to arrest him, and that the detective acted with actual malice. These are both extraordinarily high bars, particularly since a grand jury of Johnson’s peers found that there was probable cause.
The lawsuit focuses on the detective’s characterizations of Leonard’s testimony and fingerprint evidence. But the Grand Jury had direct access to Leonard as a witness, and, presumably, to fingerprint reports (plus the power to subpoena additional evidence as needed). They found probable cause to indict Johnson.
No grand jurors are named in the lawsuit. Meanwhile, one former prosecutor independently assessed that the evidence “goes way beyond probable cause.”
So, what is the suit about?
many red herrings; little substance
At issue are the detective’s statements to the Grand Jury, their veracity, and whether those statements led directly to Johnson’s indictment, arrest, and trial. Because the Grand Jury materials are sealed, we can’t verify whether the statements were made. However, assuming that they were, most of them are irrelevant to the matter at hand.
For example, the suit makes much of the fact the detective noted “no signs of struggle,” but the autopsy found bruises, cuts, and other marks on Andrea’s body, including her head. Those markings are consistent with Leonard dragging Andrea’s body through the condo and dunking her head into a bathtub, as he described in grisly detail. Leonard also testified that there was no significant struggle, consistent with the detective’s apparent testimony.
But Johnson was indicted based on a theory that he called Leonard to arrange the killing as a murder-for-hire, via phone calls. The extent to which a victim struggles, or doesn’t struggle, is not relevant to whether phone calls were made ahead of time. This issue is also not relevant to clean up: the allegation at trial was that Johnson cleaned the crime scene, not that he cleaned cuts or bruises off of the body. And if the body was visibly cut or bruised (crime scene photos show “copious” amounts of blood on Andrea’s face), why did Johnson tell the victim’s family–after he found the body–that he saw no blood and no sign of struggle?
As a reminder, it’s known that Johnson cleaned the crime scene: he admits to vacuuming, and to throwing away “the last root beer,” whereas Leonard testified that an unopened bottle of root beer was left on the floor of the scene. The relevant question is whether Johnson did so knowingly. In other words, did the scene appear such that Johnson knew, or reasonably should have known, that it was a crime scene–or, at a minimum–that someone other than Andrea and himself had recently been in the apartment? The filing labels as “false and misleading” the detective’s statement that “there were no signs of struggle in the apartment or on Ms. Cincotta’s body.” To the extent that the filing implies that there were signs of struggle in the apartment, this is unfavorable to Johnson–because it suggests that a reasonable person should have known something was amiss–whereas there was a 7.5 hour delay from the time Johnson got home to the time he called 911. If Johnson’s lawyers are arguing that the scene once showed signs of struggle, but those signs were gone when police arrived, who might have altered the scene and why?
Both sets of Johnson’s lawyers have also found fault with the fact that the contents of the vacuum bag were not tested. On national television, a paid defense witness talked about the importance of testing the vacuum bag in terms of collecting trace evidence. But if that trace evidence would have led authorities to Leonard, and Johnson is the one who vacuumed, it would be mean that Johnson’s actions had the effect of concealing Leonard’s involvement. If true, this would also be unfavorable to Johnson. However, testing the vacuum bag likely would have had no investigative value, because everyone agrees that Leonard killed Andrea and was in the apartment prior to the killing. Therefore, finding trace evidence of Leonard in the apartment would not have been significant. This is another red herring.
The filing acknowledges that Andrea was contributing money to the beach house–specifically, for building supplies. Here again, Johnson’s lawyers contradict their own client, who falsely insisted to the victim’s son that she never contributed a penny toward the house they were building together:
Unsurprisingly, the filing does not mention Johnson’s admission to secretly spending $2/minute on live cam girl-related pornography during this same time period. It also does not mention Andrea’s email to her cousin, of the same month, stating that she’d want “her half” of the beach house in the event of a breakup. This is relevant because Johnson stated that the precipitating event for the homicide was an argument that the couple had, centered around a t-shirt associated with his secret use of pornography. Police recovered the t-shirt; it tested positive for Johnson’s DNA.
The filing also does not mention the highly specific information about Andrea’s schedule that day–information that matched the information Johnson had–or its likely contribution to the grand jury’s finding of probable cause. This includes knowledge that Johnson was a self-described engineer and very specific details of Andrea’s schedule that day–details that match, to the minute, the schedule that Johnson gave police. However, the details include one mistake–the exact same mistake that Johnson made when he conveyed Andrea’s schedule to police.
The filing finds fault with the fact that police didn’t play a sample of Johnson’s voice for Leonard, to see whether he recognized it. That hardly could constitute malice, since Johnson’s own attorneys, who had access to Leonard for cross-examination, also chose not to play the audio. Recall that Leonard had already stated, in 1998, that “the husband” had called him, and Johnson had told police in 1998 that Andrea had asked him to call the man (Leonard), given him the number, that he remembered it started with “202,” and that he thought the man lived in SE Washington, DC. In other words, both men appeared to acknowledge speaking with each on the phone in 1998. This is much more significant than an academic exercise to see whether someone recognizes a voice from 20+ years ago.
The filing mischaracterizes the results of the three stings that targeted Johnson, falsely claiming that the stings “resulted only in immediate and vehement denials.” To the contrary:
- The first sting resulted in Johnson admitting that the cleaned up the crime scene, by vacuuming. For the prior 20 years, he had maintained that he merely noticed the carpet had been vacuumed.
- The first string also resulted in Johnson falsely claiming that Andrea contributed “not a penny” to the beach house, which is relevant to the prosecution’s theory of motive.
- The second sting resulted in Johnson calling the number he was given, as a number with which to arrange payment to Leonard.
- During the third sting, Johnson claims that he had never heard about “your brother” (Leonard) “until after he was in jail.” But Johnson told police in 1998 that Andrea had asked him to call the man (Leonard), had given him the number, that he remembered part of the number, and that he thought the man lived in SE Washington, DC.
- Also in the third sting, Johnson tells the undercover officer that “there was no agreement” between him and Leonard. The officer had never said anything about an agreement.
- Johnson never reported any of these interactions to Arlington police
In other areas, the suit relies on splitting hairs. For example, it alleges that the detective testified that Leonard identified Johnson as the caller, while Leonard identified “Andrea’s boyfriend” as the caller, and the detective knew “Andrea’s boyfriend” to be Johnson. In addition, Leonard testified that Andrea had handed the phone to a male that she identified as her boyfriend, to talk to Leonard. There was only one male living with Andrea at the time, and she had only one boyfriend.
Indeed, Leonard testified to the Grand Jury (asking for, and receiving, absolutely nothing in exchange for doing so–and choosing not to invoke his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination). Grand jurors are permitted to engage in questions, answers, and conversation with witnesses directly. If the jurors had a question about how Leonard came to the conclusion that the caller was Andrea’s boyfriend, or whether the caller identified themselves by proper name, they could have simply asked him–and likely did so. It is therefore difficult to see how any other witness’ precise choice of words on the topic could have meaningfully impacted the jury’s Probable Cause finding against both men.
The suit deals in outdated arguments and ignores “elephant in the room” evidence. It alleges that Johnson’s Vision Statement isn’t consistent with Andrea’s physical injuries; we documented long ago that there are many consistencies. The suit also contradicts itself on this topic, claiming on the one hand that Johnson’s Vision Statement was wholly inconsistent with Andrea’s injuries, and on the other hand, that she had multiple, visible injuries on her head, whereas Johnson described hitting Andrea on her head, then the head hitting a desk. Of course, since detectives attended the autopsy on 8/23/1998 and Johnson made the Vision Statement on 8/24/1998, they knew perfectly well what Andrea’s cause of death was, and that Johnson’s account was likely an incomplete one, and not wholly truthful.
THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM: the shoeprint
The biggest consistency between Johnson’s Vision Statement and the physical evidence is the apparent match of a marking on Andrea’s body with Johnson’s shoeprint. The marking is in a position consistent with straddling the body, as Johnson describes doing, in detail, in his statement. The filing makes no mention of this.
In addition, the filing makes a big deal of “unknown, foreign, male DNA” found on the body, but doesn’t mention that because the DNA is from an unknown male contributor, Johnson cannot be eliminated as a contributor. It also doesn’t mention that at least one of the DNA reports lists two separate unknown male contributors, which is consistent with the prosecution’s theory that both Leonard and Johnson (at separate points) interacted with the body. However, none of this is relevant either. We know that Leonard killed Andrea, so even if all of the DNA were his, it would be unsurprising and consistent with the theory that he did so based on phone call(s) from Johnson. Similarly, Johnson lived in the residence, so finding his DNA on Andrea’s body would also be unsurprising. Indeed, the DNA evidence is of “no investigative value,” just as the report states.
The filing also falsely claims that Leonard’s testimony, which left him much worse off than had he remained silent, was somehow “self-serving.” Even Dateline NBC stated that “Leonard got nothing in exchange for his testimony.” But even if Leonard had received a benefit, there’s no evidence that it was mischaracterized during grand jury testimony. Discussions about that topic happened in 2021; grand jury testimony was given in 2020. Should witnesses be liable for failing to mention things that haven’t yet occurred?
Finally, the filing implies that it was the detective who first introduced the idea of “murder-for-hire” into the investigation–in 2018. But the individual that first introduced it was Johnson, who, in the months after the murder, encouraged family members to “follow the money” and speculated that about two different theories where Andrea could have been murdered (one involving the 88 year-old mother-in-law of Kevin’s father–an individual who had never met Andrea–as having set the killing up as a murder-for-hire). Three separate witnesses recounted hearing of these interactions to police in official statements. These documents are part of the case file. At the time, family members dismissed these ideas as absurd.
The filing’s rationale for introducing this (the notion that the detective gave Leonard the idea, and Leonard latched onto it, to avoid the death penalty) goes beyond absurdity and delves into delusion. There was no death penalty in Virginia at the time of trial, or even when Leonard first testified to the Grand Jury.
Notwithstanding that, Leonard could have avoided the death penalty, become eligible for the prison transfer he allegedly sought, and preserved his eligibility for geriatric parole, by not talking at all. He was facing no charges, was not pressured, and was presented no evidence against him. When confessing, he doesn’t ask for anything in exchange for testifying and doesn’t even ask for a lawyer.
You can hear the audio for yourself here:
MISCHARACTERIZING PHYSICAL EVIDENCE and other facts
Most importantly, the filing mischaracterizes the fingerprint evidence against Johnson. It states:
There is no fingerprint evidence that creates probable cause to arrest or
prosecute Mr. Johnson. Law enforcement officers collected 460 prints
from the scene of the crime. Not all the collected prints were usable, and
not all of the prints were examined. By email dated June 4, 2019,
Detective Ortiz directed the fingerprint lab to test only for Mr. Johnson
and Mr. Leonard’s fingerprints—no others. Of the prints that were
usable and actually tested, 45 belonged to Mr. Johnson (which should
have been entirely unsurprising, given that he lived in the home with Ms.
Cincotta).
As we documented previously, there were actually 620 fingerprint-related samples tested, and they were tested against four exemplars: Johnson, Leonard, Andrea, and Andrea’s son. The only matching prints came back to Johnson. While it’s unsurprising that Johnson had prints in the home in which he lives, it’s noteworthy that none of Andrea’s prints were found there. You may read or download the report here:
The Grand Jury reasonably should have had access to this report, and all other admissible fingerprint evidence. This means that the Grand Jurors were able to draw their own conclusions about physical evidence–leading to their determination of probable cause. They would not have needed to rely on the detective’s secondhand characterizations of that evidence.
In addition, we have already documented that the exterior of the vacuum cleaner was tested and no fingerprints were found. Johnson admits to vacuuming on the night of the murder, after Leonard had left. Family members said that typically, Andrea, not Johnson, vacuumed. Why did neither of them have prints on the vacuum cleaner handle? Even if Leonard had vacuumed the crime scene and wiped down the handle when he left–which seems unlikely and is inconsistent with his testimony–why weren’t Johnson’s prints found?
We have also documented elsewhere that fingerprint evidence is not the only cleanup evidence: there is also the stark mismatch between Leonard’s description of the scene he left and the scene that the police found. The photos of that scene support the detective’s description of “no sign of struggle.”
In several cases, the filing contradicts prior statements made by Johnson. On these topics, it can reasonably be seen as Johnson changing his story again. For example, the filing states (emphasis added):
As he looked around their bedroom, Mr. Johnson noticed that the bedroom
closet door was closed. He opened the door and found Ms. Cincotta’s lifeless body folded on the floor of the closet. Her body was cold to the touch.
Johnson is on video admitting that the closet door was actually ajar the entire evening, presumably including much earlier in the evening, when he collected laundry in front of it, and placed a laundry basket directly in front of the opening. He also admits that the door–which he’d encountered 7.5 hours earlier–was out of its “usual” position. The photo shows that the door, which he acknowledged walking past “at least five times,” is directly in between two laundry baskets he used that night.
filing unwittingly supports prosecution’s theory of motive for cleanup
Finally, there is a curious passage in the filing. The authors write (emphasis added):
If Mr. Johnson had in fact hired Mr. Leonard to murder Ms. Cincotta,
several of his actions after Ms. Cincotta’s body was discovered can only
be described as nonsensical, casting a spotlight on himself and protecting
the actual killer. First, if he cleaned the apartment as alleged by
Defendants, he would have destroyed evidence left behind by Ms.
Cincotta’s killer. Second, Mr. Johnson did not call 911 until 7.5 hours
after he returned home from work, creating a large gap of time when no
one could vouch for his whereabouts or provide him with an alibi. And
third, Mr. Johnson found Ms. Cincotta’s missing car and directed law
enforcement officers to its location.
This amazing passage reads like something from a prosecution legal brief. To recap, if Johnson cleaned the apartment as alleged, he would have destroyed evidence left behind by Leonard…protecting the actual killer. Johnson’s lawyers have laid out for us a theory for why he might have cleaned up–one that also explains his 7.5 hour delay in calling 911. This could explain the fingerprint evidence. It could also explain why the crime scene looks so different than the scene Leonard testified to leaving. It could even explain the shoeprint. It ties many puzzle pieces together with one theory–which happens to be the prosecution’s theory.
In summary, this explains how, if Johnson cleaned up, doing so would have concealed Leonard’s involvement. Why would he want to do that?
Justice for Andrea Cincotta 