PANAMA CITY, Fla. – Bay CU is suing two local men to recover about $25,000 of cash and consumer items the men alleged bought with money they stole during December and January holdups because police have dropped criminal charges against the suspects.
The items listed in a suit brought in state court here include a Calvin Klein bag, Reebok shoes, one box of panties, two boxes of bras, two three-piece suits, a Polo men’s watch, three pairs of Nike sneakers, a Stanley ratchet set, a Goodyear global positioning system and $24,814 of stolen cash.
While the criminal case was dropped, lawyers for the credit union say in a civil case the two men can be called as witnesses and will have to explain where they got the items, including cash that had been stamped by the credit union.
In a criminal case, prosecutors must prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but in a civil case the credit union only has to have the “preponderance of the evidence.”
“Since there are no criminal charges pending, and the seized money and property purchased with stolen money do not need to remain in evidence, the money and property purchased with stolen money should be returned to their rightful owner, Plaintiff,” reads the credit union’s suit.
The two suspects, Freddy Thomas and Darrell “Cash” Grady, were charged with armed robbery, but the charges against both men were dropped when the DNA evidence in the case did not conclusively prove the suspects robbed the credit union. Grady allegedly was the getaway car driver.
During the first robbery, Dec. 14, a suspect threatened the tellers, saying he had a gun, but never displayed it. During the second robbery, Jan. 8, the suspect fired his gun at a glass partition between the lobby and the teller area of the credit union and herded two tellers into the safe, where he locked the others inside after stealing cash.
After the January heist investigators targeted Thomas as the robber after getting a tip that he had bought a Cadillac with cash on the night of the second robbery. At the time, Thomas was unemployed with no apparent source of income, according to police.
Some of the cash was stamped by the credit union, but investigators had no way to prove that it was the cash taken during the robbery. Also, the tellers could not pick Thomas out of a lineup.
The criminal case hinged on DNA taken from Thomas, the alleged robber. But of several items collected at the credit union only one, a pen Thomas allegedly took from a teller, came back with trace amounts of what could have been Thomas’ DNA. The results were inconclusive and “insufficient to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt,” according to prosecutors.
Another key piece of evidence was the testimony of Grady’s wife, who had told Springfield investigators that Grady and Thomas robbed the credit union. However, that testimony was thrown out because of spousal privilege. Under the privilege a husband or wife cannot be compelled to testify about private communications during the marriage.
