In February 2018, Edward Meiggs filed a formal complaint and request for investigation into the blatant misconduct committed by Vanderburgh County Deputy Prosecutor, Javier Lugo. This misconduct violated Edward's rights as a citzen and it's likely that Javier Lugo had committed the same kind of law and court violations against other citizens. You can read or listen to the formal complaint below. The below complaint was sent to Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission.
Vanderburgh County Deputy Prosecutor Javier Lugo knowingly lied in a tribunal on 04/19/2017 concerning case 82D03-1505-F3-002607. Indiana Rules of Court: Indiana’s Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.3(a)(1) states that a “lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer.” Lugo did this and it jeopardized my right to a fair trial. I ask that you look into this matter and investigate Lugo’s conduct for the above case and all other cases he has been involved in due to the probability of Lugo violating other citizens’ rights and committing misconduct before multiple tribunals.
On 05/06/2015, I was charged with 3 counts of rape. I volunteered to provide my DNA so testing could be done that would ultimately prove my innocence, which it did. However, the evidence was inadmissible in court because it revealed the alleged victim’s sexual conduct [Indiana Rules of Court: Rules of Evidence 412(a)]. DNA belonging to 3-4 unknown contributors were discovered on the alleged victim, none matching me. On 04/19/2017, I was acquitted for 2 of the 3 charges. I was found guilty of only 1 charge, and that charge was Count 2, “… penetration with tongue.” Lugo lied before the tribunal on 04/19/2017 during his closing arguments at trial stating that my “saliva” and “amylase” were on the alleged victim’s external genitalia. That is a blatant lie. None of my saliva was found whatsoever. The only “saliva” or “amylase” confirmed to belong to anyone on the alleged victim was that of the alleged victim.
Forensic scientist, Nicole Hoffman, testified during the 3-day trial (04/17/2017-04/19/2017). The Certificate of Analysis published by forensic scientist Nicole Hoffman and dated on 08/06/2015 cited the presence of amylase. The only source of amylase confirmed, however, belonged to the alleged victim. Because the Certificate of Analysis was not admissible in court, the forensic scientist Nicole Hoffman testified. She cited that the only amylase confirmed belonged to the alleged victim and nobody else. The 08/06/2015 Certificate of Analysis even states that while amylase was detected on the external genitalia of the alleged victim, “additional testing did not confirm the presence of seminal material… The combined external genital swabs failed to demonstrate a sufficient quantity of male DNA for autosomal STR analysis.” Again, I reiterate that the ONLY amylase confirmed to belong to anybody was that of the alleged victim. The 08/06/2015 Certificate of Analysis published by Nicole Hoffman cited the following concerning the presence of the victim’s amylase, “A major profile was determined at the eleven loci that is consistent with A.W. (item 002A1) and is estimated to occur once in more than 8 trillion unrelated individuals.”
During closing statements of my trial on 04/19/2017, Javier Lugo said the following, “…I think there were some sleights of hand here. If you look back at the DNA evidence the analyst said some of those results were inconclusive, a determination couldn’t be made, and some were conclusive. Where they found none of his DNA on some of those items, but it’s important to go back on the external genital swabs. And Mr. Phillips said that there was no amylase. Look back at your notes because Nicole Hoffman, the first DNA technician, when she talked about the genital swab on the external area she said amylase was detected… Amylase is a component of saliva. Mr. Phillips said a lot of things that I didn’t hear any explanation of how his DNA while giving a massage while never having touched her in any appropriate – inappropriate manner… How does that DNA get on there? How does [it] end up on her external genitalia? How does saliva end up there? How does amylase end up getting detected?”
Javier Lugo exploited the inadmissibility of the 08/06/2015 Certificate of Analysis during trial and consciously utilized Nicole Hoffman’s findings of unmatched amylase on the external genital swabs as selling points in his lie. The jury never knew about the 3-4 unknown contributors not matching my DNA on retained evidence. So, when Javier Lugo said, “his DNA,” and also referenced my trial court attorney “Mr. Phillips,” Lugo was indicating me and only me. I was the subject of the trial. There is absolutely no possibility for the jury to interpret “his DNA” as anyone other than me as being the contributor of the unmatched amylase.
Let’s use transitive law to make astute deductive reasoning. You know the one, “if a is equal to b and b is equal to c, then a is equal to c.” (A) The 08/06/2015 Certificate of Analysis published by Nicole Hoffman cited that while amylase was found on the external genitalia of the alleged victim, “The combined external genital swabs failed to demonstrate a sufficient quantity of male DNA for autosomal STR analysis”; (B) the only amylase confirmed throughout the whole case and in evidence was found on the alleged victim’s shorts and belonged to the alleged victim as cited in the 08/06/2015 Certificate of Analysis, “A major profile was determined at the eleven loci that is consistent with A. W.(item 002A1) and is estimated to occur once in more than 8 trillion unrelated individuals”; (C) the unmatched amylase found on the external genitals most likely belonged to the alleged victim since there was not enough – if any – detectable male DNA and because the amylase confirmed on other evidence (shorts) did belong to the alleged victim.
Javier Lugo did not simply make an honest mistake or foul up words. During jury deliberations while the jury was absent from the tribunal, Lugo defended his actions and laughed at me, noting that he, “never specifically told the jury that the saliva was Meiggs’ saliva.” That’s true; he used “his DNA” to denote me. Who else would the jury assume “his” was when they didn’t know there was the presence of multiple DNA contributors not matching my DNA on the analysis because of Indiana Rules of Evidence Rule 412(a)? Javier Lugo “knowingly” lied to the tribunal.
I am going to use transitive law again: (A) I was acquitted (found not guilty/found innocent) on the 2 charges where the truth was told during court; (B) Javier Lugo lied about only the charge I was convicted of; (C) I would not have been convicted of, “penetration with tongue,” if Javier Lugo had not lied concerning “saliva” and “amylase.” Javier Lugo won a conviction. I lost my family, freedom, and life because of Javier Lugo’s lie.
Javier Lugo’s misconduct clearly represents violation of Indiana Rules of Court: Indiana’s Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.3(a)(1) in its entirety. He knowingly made a false statement of fact to a tribunal and failed to correct his false statement of fact when the jury returned during and after deliberations. He was corrected by my attorney through an objection and a 2nd time in the jury’s absence. Lugo fully admitted his committal of making a false statement of fact and jeered at my misfortune.
Javier Lugo also reiterated his lie to the media. Lugo lied to the Courier Press and said that my DNA was conclusively found on the alleged victim’s external genitals. As a citizen and member of the public, Javier Lugo is subject to the same standards of libel law as any citizen, regardless of his professional position.
Indiana’s definition for libel is to “make defamatory falsehoods with ‘actual malice’ or ‘reckless disregard for the truth.” The legal definition of malice is, “The intentional commission of a wrongful act, absent justification, with the intent to cause harm to others; conscious violation of the law that injures another individual.” Javier Lugo committed malice because he intentionally lied to media about the facts and evidence of the case – which is a wrongful act – with the intent to cause harm toward me, my reputation, and my case. He also violated Indiana’s libel law, which supports the requirement for the last part of the legal definition of malice, “conscious violation of the law that injures another individual.” To corroborate his lie that led to my conviction, Javier Lugo had to make a conscious decision to lie to media, which intentionally injured me and consciously violated the law.
It’s obvious that Javier Lugo acted with reckless disregard for the truth when he was well aware that none of my amylase was anywhere on the alleged victim and that none of my DNA was confirmed anywhere on the alleged victim though he told the media otherwise. Based on Indiana’s requirements for libel, Javier Lugo committed it.
I’d like to end my complaint and request for investigation on one final note. There is further evidence that Javier Lugo’s misconduct and law violations jeopardized my right to a fair trial. The jury requested clarifications on the charge he lied about on two separate occasions. I will use transitive law one final time: (A) The jury did not ask for clarification or send out questions during deliberations concerning the two charges I was acquitted of; (B) the jury sought clarification on two separate occasions during deliberations only for the charge Javier Lugo lied about and I was convicted of, ultimately receiving no help because Judge Robert Pigman stated, “I’m not going to answer the second one at this point.”; (C) the jury wrongfully convicted me because they were confused about the inconsistency in Javier Lugo’s lie not corroborating with the expert testimony of Nicole Hoffman and because their requests for clarifications went unanswered by the presiding Judge Robert Pigman.
I ask that you look into this very evident form of misconduct and perform the necessary due diligence to prevent its occurrence to other Vanderburgh County citizens. Reprimanding Javier Lugo is necessary to prevent future miscarriages of justice, wrongful convictions, and rights violations.