What Should Have Happened
- Litigation hold should have been issued when legal action became foreseeable
- All relevant communications should have been preserved
- Personal devices used for official business should be subject to retention policies
- Evidence preservation should be enforced through policy
What Actually Happened
- Multiple officers deleted text messages relevant to the investigation
- No litigation hold was ever established
- No retention policies were enforced for electronic communications
- Pattern of deletion by officers close to the arrestee suggests coordination
People Involved
Event Details
Event Summary
Between 2022 and 2024, multiple officers involved in the Marc King OWI matter admitted in sworn testimony that text messages relevant to the incident were deleted or lost.
Who Deleted Evidence
Matthew Pohl
- Admitted in deposition to deleting text messages
- These messages were relevant to the November 2022 incident
- Close personal friend of Marc King
Damon Duva
- Admitted in sworn testimony to deleted or lost text messages
- Communications from the relevant time period are missing
- Close personal friend of Marc King
Why This Matters
Legal Implications
The deletion of evidence relevant to a foreseeable legal matter has serious consequences:
- Adverse Inference: Courts may instruct juries to assume the deleted evidence was unfavorable to the party that destroyed it
- Discovery Sanctions: Parties can face penalties for destroying relevant evidence
- Evidence Tampering: Under Michigan law ( MCL 750.491 ), tampering with evidence is a criminal offense
- Spoliation Doctrine: The intentional destruction of evidence can result in severe legal consequences
Pattern of Behavior
The fact that multiple officers—all close to the arrestee—deleted communications suggests a coordinated effort to eliminate evidence rather than coincidental data loss.
No Litigation Hold
A “litigation hold” is a standard procedure requiring preservation of all potentially relevant documents when legal action is foreseeable. In this case:
- No litigation hold was established
- No retention policies were enforced
- Personal devices were used for official communications without preservation requirements
- The foreseeable nature of legal consequences makes the failure to preserve evidence particularly troubling
Questions Raised
- What was in the deleted messages?
- Who else deleted communications?
- Was there coordination in the deletion of evidence?
- Why were no preservation protocols followed?