State of Georgia
v.
Deashea L. Smith
Deashea Smith is a domestic violence survivor. Three months after her abuser strangled her and was arrested, he armed himself with a metal pipe and threatened to kill a friend. She stepped in front of him. She was charged. He wasn't.
That was nearly four years ago. The man she stopped was recorded months later admitting exactly what happened — that he intended to use the pipe, and that the prosecution's key witness "wasn't even there" and "lied on you." The prosecution continued anyway.
She has had four public defenders. None did anything. The last one filed a fraudulent withdrawal notice — using a misspelled address — timed to take a judgeship seven days later. His new colleague on the bench then retaliated against her for filing a bar complaint, leaving a woman on food stamps, recovering from facial surgery after a dog mauling, with no income and no assets, being told by the judge to go hire a lawyer.
Trial is April 13, 2026. She still has no lawyer. Hear what the complainant said — in his own words — below.
In His Own Words
The Complainant Admits What Happened
The complainant, recorded March 4, 2023, admitting what happened: that he intended to use the pipe, that the prosecution's key witness "wasn't even there," and that she "lied on you."
The Same Man Threatens to Kill the Defendant and the Eyewitness
The same man, August 30, 2022, threatening to kill both the defendant and the eyewitness — ten weeks after the incident, while the prosecution was already underway.
5 Critical Issues
The police report is a near-total fabrication — self-reviewed with no supervisor, the wound was elevated from chin to neck to upgrade the charge, a false 'drug dealer' narrative sourced from the alleged victim was presented as fact, three body cameras existed but the officer certified none were used, and BWC footage appears nowhere in the evidence list. The officer recorded contradictory statements from Cresswell and Templin, saw those contradictions, and filed anyway without attempting to resolve them. The defendant was not present at the scene and was arrested later on a warrant sworn by an officer who was also not there.
In a recorded phone call, Cresswell confessed that the only reason he didn't hit Smith with the metal pipe was because she got in the way — he admitted she was defending someone else. He also sent voice messages threatening to kill both Smith and the eyewitness. Both recordings were disclosed to the prosecutor, who continued the case anyway.
Three months before the June 2022 incident, Cresswell strangled Smith in front of a witness, leaving visible marks on her throat. He was arrested. He lied to officers and claimed she had done it to herself. Georgia law requires officers to conduct a predominant aggressor analysis in any subsequent domestic call — the June 2022 officers had access to that prior arrest and never mentioned it.
After the case was transferred to Catoosa County State Court, a DA email acknowledged: "That's probably where the case will die." The prosecution continued for 10+ months after that admission — through multiple hearings, three denials of counsel, and a post-surgical pro se defendant.
Appointed counsel knew he was being considered for a judicial appointment — a conflict requiring disclosure — and never disclosed it. He abandoned the case with a fraudulent certificate of service. Smith filed a bar complaint. The complaint is confidential by rule, but Caldwell ex parte'd the judge with the information; the judge then mentioned it in open court and refused to appoint any other attorney. When Smith sought new counsel, the judge told her she 'looks able-bodied and capable of working' — despite having already found her indigent and appointed counsel on that same basis.
The police report is a near-total fabrication — self-reviewed with no supervisor, the wound was elevated from chin to neck to upgrade the charge, a false 'drug dealer' narrative sourced from the alleged victim was presented as fact, three body cameras existed but the officer certified none were used, and BWC footage appears nowhere in the evidence list. The officer recorded contradictory statements from Cresswell and Templin, saw those contradictions, and filed anyway without attempting to resolve them. The defendant was not present at the scene and was arrested later on a warrant sworn by an officer who was also not there.
In a recorded phone call, Cresswell confessed that the only reason he didn't hit Smith with the metal pipe was because she got in the way — he admitted she was defending someone else. He also sent voice messages threatening to kill both Smith and the eyewitness. Both recordings were disclosed to the prosecutor, who continued the case anyway.
Three months before the June 2022 incident, Cresswell strangled Smith in front of a witness, leaving visible marks on her throat. He was arrested. He lied to officers and claimed she had done it to herself. Georgia law requires officers to conduct a predominant aggressor analysis in any subsequent domestic call — the June 2022 officers had access to that prior arrest and never mentioned it.
After the case was transferred to Catoosa County State Court, a DA email acknowledged: "That's probably where the case will die." The prosecution continued for 10+ months after that admission — through multiple hearings, three denials of counsel, and a post-surgical pro se defendant.
Appointed counsel knew he was being considered for a judicial appointment — a conflict requiring disclosure — and never disclosed it. He abandoned the case with a fraudulent certificate of service. Smith filed a bar complaint. The complaint is confidential by rule, but Caldwell ex parte'd the judge with the information; the judge then mentioned it in open court and refused to appoint any other attorney. When Smith sought new counsel, the judge told her she 'looks able-bodied and capable of working' — despite having already found her indigent and appointed counsel on that same basis.
Full documentation, audio recordings, transcripts, and all 30+ exhibits are available in the sections below. The Press Packet contains curated starting points for attorneys, journalists, and oversight bodies.
The DA Said: "That's Probably Where the Case Will Die."
After the case was transferred from Superior Court to Catoosa County State Court, a District Attorney email — contained in the Amended Motion to Dismiss — acknowledged in writing that the prosecution was likely to fail on the merits. The prosecution continued for more than ten months after that admission, through multiple hearings, three denials of counsel, and a post-surgical pro se defendant.
"That's probably where the case will die."
What the Record Shows
The case of State v. Deashea L. Smith has been pending for nearly four years. The available record — body camera footage, police reports, court transcripts, a recorded admission by the complainant, death threats, eyewitness affidavits, and court correspondence — raises substantial questions about the factual basis for the charge, the conduct of the initial investigation, the adequacy of appointed counsel, and the impartiality of subsequent judicial proceedings.
This site organizes that record for attorneys, journalists, and civil rights organizations reviewing the case. Every factual claim is cited to a specific exhibit, transcript page, or court filing. Where a claim reflects the defendant's knowledge rather than a verified fact, it is labeled as such.
Deficient Investigation — Report Materially Contradicted by Body Camera Evidence
The responding officer failed to interview the sole eyewitness, certified three body cameras were not used when recordings exist, elevated the wound location from chin to neck to support a more serious charge, and filed a report containing statements that contradict each other — contradictions the officer recorded and left unresolved.
Exhibits A, PProsecution Maintained Despite Exculpatory Evidence
For four years, the Solicitor-General's office has prosecuted Ms. Smith while ignoring a recorded confession from the alleged victim, a documented history of his violence, and sworn testimony from an eyewitness confirming the act of self-defense.
Exhibits D, D-1, GRepeated Denial of Counsel and Off-Record Proceedings
The court has denied counsel on multiple occasions, allowed conflicted attorneys to withdraw without notice, conducted critical proceedings off the record, and declined to hear thirteen substantive motions filed by the defendant.
Exhibits J, K, S, B, CCase Chronology: June 2022 – April 2026
Click any event to expand details.
More than two years before the June 2022 incident, Joshua Cresswell was arrested on charges of Harassment and Criminal Impersonation. This booking record establishes a documented pattern of criminal behavior predating his relationship with Smith. The charges are consistent with the pattern of threatening and controlling behavior documented in the April 2022 Facebook messages (Exhibits B-1 through B-6). This prior arrest record was available to law enforcement and prosecutors but was never referenced in the June 2022 investigation or in any subsequent court proceeding.
Three months before the June 17 incident, Joshua Cresswell physically assaulted Deashea Smith by strangling her inside their shared residence. Red Bank Police responded to the scene and documented the incident in a formal police report. No arrest was made and no charges were filed against Cresswell — a decision that would prove consequential. Georgia O.C.G.A. § 17-4-20.1 mandates that responding officers in family violence calls conduct a predominant aggressor analysis that explicitly requires consideration of prior history of violence. The June 2022 Catoosa County officers had access to this Red Bank report and ignored it entirely. Two independent witnesses have now provided written statements corroborating the March 9 assault: Jeannie Holmann (Exhibit E) provided a Facebook message statement documenting the strangulation, and John Lukach (Exhibit E-1) provided a two-page written witness statement documenting Cresswell's pattern of violence and Smith's calls for help. Neither witness was ever contacted by law enforcement.
In the weeks following the March 2022 assault, Joshua Cresswell sent a series of Facebook Messenger messages to Deashea Smith and Nicolas Oliverius that document a sustained pattern of threatening, controlling, and violent behavior. These messages establish Cresswell's character as the aggressor in the relationship and directly contradict the prosecution's narrative that Smith was the primary aggressor on June 17, 2022. Key messages include explicit threats of violence, statements that 'he gotta go through me,' admissions that 'when I do I tend to do a lot of damage,' and the chilling April 22 message in which Cresswell states 'I'm not going out alone — I'm taking a couple with me.' These messages were never provided to the Solicitor-General's office and have never been acknowledged in any court proceeding.
At their shared residence on Templin Hill Road, Joshua Cresswell armed himself with a metal pipe and threatened to attack Nicolas Oliverius. Oliverius had been staying there at the invitation of both Smith and Cresswell, to help clear storage the following day. Cresswell sustained a laceration to the chin (not the neck, as the police report falsely states). Deashea Smith was not present when police arrived. Officers responded to the scene and found Cresswell, Gloria Templin, and Mike the maintenance man. Officer Gross declared Cresswell 'just the victim' at timestamp [00:16:51] — before conducting any investigation. He never contacted Oliverius, the only person who witnessed the incident. Oliverius later provided a sworn affidavit (Exhibit G) confirming that Cresswell was the aggressor. He also posted Smith's $500 bond. Smith was not arrested at the scene — she was arrested later on a warrant sworn by Officer Lanham, who was also not present. The Arraignment Transcript (Exhibit M) from exactly two years later — June 17, 2024 — captures Smith appearing pro se and telling the court: 'These are not witnesses. These are the ones that actually attacked me. The only witness is not on the report.'
The police report authored by Officer Gross contains at least 8 material failures that have infected every subsequent proceeding. The report: (1) falsely certifies no body camera was used — a 31-minute recording exists and was transcribed as Exhibit P; (2) fabricates the phrase 'drug dealer' attributed to witness Gloria Templin — she never uses this phrase in 31 minutes of recorded conversation; (3) states the victim was 'stabbed in the neck' — the injury was a laceration to the chin, confirmed by EMS personnel on camera; (4) was approved by the authoring officer himself with no supervisor review; (5) formed the sole basis for an arrest warrant sworn by Officer Johnny Lanham, who was not present at the scene and had no personal knowledge of events. Of 30 distinct claims in the report, only 10 (33%) were verified by the body camera footage. 12 (40%) were directly contradicted by the footage. Exhibit C (Contradictions and Shifting Narratives) and Exhibit C-2 (Police Report vs. Body Cam Analysis) provide a comprehensive point-by-point comparison demonstrating the systematic nature of the fabrications. The report was the poisoned well from which the entire prosecution flowed — and every subsequent proceeding has relied on it without independent verification.
Just 10 weeks after the incident, Joshua Cresswell — the state's complaining witness — was recorded issuing a direct death threat against both Deashea Smith and Nicolas Oliverius. The recording captures Cresswell stating 'I'll be waiting for Nick when he gets home' and 'I'm gonna kill you both.' This recording was disclosed to the prosecutor, never investigated by law enforcement, and has never been acknowledged in any court proceeding. It is directly material to the self-defense claim: it demonstrates that Cresswell's violent intentions toward Oliverius were not a one-time event but a sustained pattern. Combined with the April 2022 Facebook messages (Exhibits B-1 through B-6), this recording establishes a documented course of threatening conduct spanning months before and after the June 17 incident. Under Georgia Rule of Evidence § 24-4-404(b), this recording is admissible to show motive, intent, and absence of mistake. Under Brady v. Maryland, it is material exculpatory evidence that the prosecution has an affirmative duty to disclose. The recording has never been disclosed.
In a recorded phone call, Joshua Cresswell — the state's complaining witness — confesses to being the aggressor in the June 17, 2022 incident. The conversation begins with a direct reference to the pipe attack: 'Why didn't you hit that son of a bitch with the metal pipe when you had the chance?' Cresswell's response confirms the pipe attack was real and that he was the one who initiated it. He further states that Gloria Templin 'was not there' and 'she lied on you,' directly impeaching the state's key witness — the same witness whose statement forms the entire factual basis of the police report. He also states 'I'm not gonna press charges. I'm gonna tell them to drop the charges.' This recording was disclosed to the prosecutor, who has never acknowledged it in any court proceeding. It is the single most powerful piece of exculpatory evidence in the case: a confession from the alleged victim that the prosecution's entire narrative is false, that the state's key witness fabricated her account, and that the complaining witness himself does not wish to proceed. The prosecution has continued for nearly four years after this recording was made.
On the exact two-year anniversary of the incident, the Catoosa County State Court denied Deashea Smith's application for indigent defense counsel. Smith's income at the time was approximately $675 per month gross — well below the federal poverty line. The court made no written findings and no order was filed with the Clerk of Court. The denial left Smith — a dyslexic woman with limited formal legal education — to navigate a complex criminal proceeding alone. The Arraignment Transcript (Exhibit M) from this same date captures the full scene: Smith appears pro se before Judge Goulart, enters a not-guilty plea, and immediately identifies the core problem — 'These are not witnesses. These are the ones that actually attacked me. The only witness is not on the report.' The court takes no action on this statement. The timing of the denial, on the precise anniversary of the incident, is notable. No explanation was provided for why the same financial circumstances that would later be found sufficient in February 2025 were deemed insufficient in June 2024.
After a second application, Judge Goulart found Smith indigent and appointed Michael Caldwell as defense counsel. The financial circumstances were materially identical to the June 2024 application that was denied — the same income, the same expenses, the same defendant. No explanation was given for the reversal. The Application for Counsel (Exhibit H-1) documents the financial disclosures Smith provided: reliance on food stamps, minimal income, inability to afford private counsel. Caldwell's appointment appeared to be a resolution of the constitutional crisis created by the prior denial — but it introduced a new problem that would become apparent within weeks. The appointment was made without any disclosure of Caldwell's pending confirmation as a Ringgold City Council judge, a conflict that would render his representation constitutionally defective from the outset under Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980), which holds that an attorney with an actual conflict of interest who fails to disclose it provides constitutionally deficient representation.
Michael Caldwell, Smith's court-appointed defense counsel, was confirmed as a Ringgold City Council judge on April 14, 2025. This created an un-waivable conflict of interest: a sitting judge cannot simultaneously serve as criminal defense counsel. Caldwell never disclosed this conflict to his client. Under the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct and Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.7, this conflict required immediate disclosure and withdrawal. Instead, Caldwell continued to nominally represent Smith for seven more days without informing her of the conflict, the impending withdrawal, or the steps she should take to protect her rights. The Certificate of Service on his eventual withdrawal motion was fraudulent — it certified service by mail to an address where Smith no longer resided. A September 2, 2025 Facebook post by the Cowan Law Firm confirms that Caldwell was actively employed by that firm while simultaneously serving as Smith's court-appointed counsel — a second, independent conflict of interest that was also never disclosed.
Seven days after his confirmation as a Ringgold City Council judge — confirmed by the City Council Agenda (Exhibit K) — Michael Caldwell filed a motion to withdraw as defense counsel, citing an 'un-waivable conflict of interest.' The motion was sent by mail only, to an address where Smith no longer resided. She was never notified of the withdrawal. The Certificate of Service on the motion was fraudulent: it certified that service was made at an address Caldwell knew or should have known was not current. Smith learned of the withdrawal only when she appeared for a scheduled hearing and discovered she had no attorney. The Order Permitting Withdrawal (Exhibit L-1), signed August 4, 2025, was granted without any inquiry into whether Smith had received notice or had substitute counsel. This abandonment, without notice and without ensuring substitute counsel, constitutes a violation of ABA Standards for Criminal Justice § 4-1.3 (Duty to Communicate) and § 4-8.3 (Withdrawal from Representation). The Formal Judicial Misconduct Complaint filed in February 2026 identifies this as one of the primary grounds for JQC investigation.
The court denied Smith's third application for indigent defense counsel, reversing its February 2025 finding of indigence. The financial circumstances were again materially identical. The hearing was conducted without a court reporter, leaving no official transcript. Most critically: the indigency application from this hearing was never filed with the Clerk of Court. Correspondence from the Catoosa County Clerk of Court (October 24, 2025) confirms: 'I do not have an application and order for August 4, 2025 that is filed.' A subsequent GSCCCA eCertification (November 6, 2025) states: 'August application for Indigent Defense was not filed with the Clerk's office, judge has it in his office for advisement.' A judge retaining an indigency application 'for advisement' for months — without filing it — deprives the defendant of a reviewable record and constitutes an extraordinary procedural irregularity. The judge also made retaliatory statements on the record during this hearing.
At the February 9, 2026 hearing, the court again refused to appoint counsel, forcing Smith to represent herself pro se. The hearing transcript (rough draft) documents an extraordinary exchange. Smith informed the court she had recently undergone surgery, was relying on food stamps, and could not afford private counsel. The court's response — 'I find you have the ability to get a job and work where you previously were employed' — was made without any inquiry into Smith's medical condition, her surgical recovery, or the nature of her prior employment. Smith had just told the court her face was 'torn off in a dog attack' and she was still seeing surgeons. The court offered no explanation for how a woman on food stamps, recovering from facial surgery, living hours from the courthouse, could be found non-indigent. The court then offered to schedule a jury trial for the following Monday — four years after the incident, with no counsel, no hearing on any of the 13 pending motions, and no acknowledgment of the recorded confession or death threat. Smith accepted a continuance. The prosecution remains active.
The Investigation
What follows is a reconstruction of the June 17, 2022 investigation — what Officer Jeffery Gross did, what he documented, what he did not document, and what the body camera footage and eyewitness account show in contrast. Each section cites a specific exhibit or transcript.
When Red Bank Police arrived at the scene on June 17, 2022, three people were present: Joshua Cresswell (the alleged victim), Gloria Templin, and Mike, the building's maintenance man. Deashea Smith was not there. Nicolas Oliverius — the only eyewitness to the incident — was also not present when officers arrived. Cresswell had a minor laceration to his chin. Three body-worn cameras were recording.
Officer Gross spoke to Cresswell. He spoke to Gloria Templin, who was not present during the incident itself. He never spoke to Nicolas Oliverius — the one person who witnessed the entire sequence of events from start to finish. Oliverius was not at the scene when police arrived, but he was known, reachable, and never contacted by any officer, investigator, or prosecutor in four years.
Oliverius later filed a sworn affidavit (Exhibit G) stating that Cresswell armed himself with a metal pipe and threatened to attack him. Oliverius had been staying at the shared residence at the invitation of both Smith and Cresswell, to help clear storage the following day. His account has never been contradicted by any physical evidence, any recording, or any other witness. It has also never been presented to a jury. Smith was not arrested at the scene — she was arrested later on a warrant sworn by Officer Lanham, who was also not present.
The report Officer Gross filed the following day, June 18, 2022, contains a field that reads:"BWC Used: No."A 31-minute body camera recording of the entire investigation exists. It was transcribed in full as Exhibit P. The false certification concealed the footage from prosecutors, defense counsel, and the court for years — and the recording contradicts at least 12 of the 30 claims in the written report.
The report describes Cresswell's wound as a "stab wound to the neck." The body camera footage shows a minor laceration to the chin. The wound was described by EMS as one that could be "glued shut" — skin adhesive, not sutures. The elevation from chin to neck was not a transcription error. It changed the legal character of the injury and supported a more serious charge.
The report also records Templin's statement that Smith was a "drug dealer." The body camera recording captures Templin saying, on camera at timestamp [00:24:53]: "On the way down here he's like tell them this or tell them that." Cresswell scripted Templin's statement before she spoke to police. The officer was present when she said this. It was never investigated, never noted in the report, and has never been disclosed to the prosecution or the court.
Cresswell and Templin gave contradictory accounts. The report records both. The officer saw the contradictions and filed without attempting to resolve them. The report was then approved — by Officer Gross himself. No supervisor reviewed it.
Three months before the June 17 incident, on March 9, 2022, Red Bank Police responded to a call at the same address. Joshua Cresswell had strangled Deashea Smith. There was a witness. He left marks on her throat. He was arrested. He told officers she must have done it to herself.
Georgia law — O.C.G.A. § 17-4-20.1 — mandates that officers responding to a family violence call conduct a predominant aggressor determination before making any arrest. That determination requires them to consider, among other factors, any prior history of violence between the parties. The March 2022 report documenting Cresswell as the prior aggressor was in the same department's records. No predominant aggressor analysis was conducted. No mention of the March incident appears anywhere in the June 17 report.
Had the statute been followed, the analysis would have identified Cresswell — not Smith — as the predominant aggressor. The arrest that followed, and the prosecution that has continued for four years, would not have been legally permissible.
The arrest warrant for Deashea Smith was sworn by Officer Johnny Lanham. Lanham was not present at the scene on June 17, 2022. He had no personal knowledge of the events. He relied entirely on the report authored by Officer Gross — the same report that falsely certified no body camera was used, elevated the wound location, omitted the eyewitness, and recorded a scripted statement as independent testimony.
The Fourth Amendment requires that a warrant be supported by an oath from someone with personal knowledge. The warrant in this case was constitutionally defective from the moment it was signed. Every proceeding that followed — every hearing, every continuance, every counsel denial — was built on that defective foundation.
The investigation on June 17, 2022 lasted approximately 31 minutes. In that time, the responding officer took the aggressor's account, ignored the eyewitness, certified the cameras were off, elevated the injury, recorded a scripted statement as independent testimony, and filed a report he approved himself.
That 31-minute investigation has produced four years of prosecution. Deashea Smith has appeared before the court more than a dozen times. She has been denied counsel three times. She has filed thirteen substantive motions, none of which have been heard on the merits. She underwent surgery and appeared pro se in the weeks that followed. She has been told by a judge that she "looks able-bodied" and is "capable of working" — despite having been found indigent and granted counsel by that same court in a prior proceeding.
The annotated report analysis and the full procedural record are in the sections below. Every claim in the report is documented. Every procedural failure is cited. Every quote is pinned to a transcript page and line number.
The Police Report: A Claim-by-Claim Analysis
Every statement below is taken verbatim from the police report authored by Officer Jeffery Gross on June 18, 2022. Each is annotated against the body camera footage (Exhibit P), the recorded admission by the complainant (Exhibit D), and the eyewitness affidavit (Exhibit G). Of 30 distinct claims, only 33% were independently verified. The remainder contain material errors, omissions, or statements directly contradicted by the body camera evidence.
What a proper investigation would have required
- ✓Contact and interview the eyewitness (Oliverius), who witnessed the incident and was reachable
- ✓Review body camera footage before filing — three units were active
- ✓Conduct a mandatory predominant aggressor analysis under O.C.G.A. § 17-4-20.1
- ✓Cross-reference the March 2022 strangulation arrest before making a new arrest
- ✓Verify witness statements before recording them as fact
- ✓Obtain supervisor review before filing a report in a domestic violence arrest
- ✓Document the actual wound location and severity accurately
- ✓Note the source and bias of secondhand characterizations
What Officer Gross actually did
- ✗Never contacted Oliverius — the only eyewitness, known and reachable
- ✗Certified "No BWC used" — three units were recording
- ✗Elevated the wound from chin to neck to support a more serious charge
- ✗Recorded Cresswell's unverified secondhand claim ("drug dealer") as Templin's independent statement
- ✗Recorded contradictory statements from Cresswell and Templin, saw the contradictions, and filed without resolving them
- ✗Approved his own report with no supervisor review
- ✗Made no attempt to contact the defendant — her account does not appear anywhere in the report
- ✗Omitted Cresswell's March 2022 strangulation arrest from the incident narrative
The report was not the product of a brief encounter with incomplete information. It was the product of a deliberate choice: take the aggressor's account, ignore the eyewitness, certify the cameras were off, elevate the injury, and file without review. The annotated analysis below documents each claim against the evidence.
Beyond the falsified report text, the investigation itself violated mandatory statutory duties, constitutional requirements, and basic investigative standards.
Warrant Sworn by Absent Officer
CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONThe arrest warrant was sworn by Officer Johnny Lanham, who was not present at the scene and had no personal knowledge of the events. Under the Fourth Amendment, a warrant must be supported by an oath from someone with personal knowledge. Lanham relied solely on the false report authored by Officer Gross. The warrant was constitutionally defective from inception — built on fabricated facts, sworn by a non-witness.
Exhibit A, Arrest WarrantNo Predominant Aggressor Analysis — O.C.G.A. § 17-4-20.1
STATUTORY VIOLATIONGeorgia law mandates a predominant aggressor determination before any arrest in a family violence call. Officers must consider prior history of violence, relative injury severity, likelihood of future injury, and whether one party acted in self-defense. No such analysis was conducted — despite the March 2022 strangulation report (Exhibit I) showing Cresswell as the documented prior aggressor. Had the statute been followed, Cresswell — not Smith — would have been identified as the predominant aggressor.
O.C.G.A. § 17-4-20.1; Exhibit IEyewitness Nicolas Oliverius Never Interviewed
INVESTIGATIVE FAILUREOliverius witnessed the incident and was known to officers. He was not at the scene when police arrived but was reachable. No officer spoke to him. His sworn affidavit (Exhibit G) confirms Cresswell armed himself with a metal pipe and threatened to attack him. He was never contacted by any officer, investigator, or prosecutor in four years. He posted Smith's $500 bond — the same person who swears under oath to her innocence.
Exhibit G — Oliverius AffidavitOn-Camera Witness Tampering Ignored — [00:24:53]
INVESTIGATIVE FAILUREAt BWC timestamp [00:24:53], Gloria Templin states: 'On the way down here he's like tell them this or tell them that.' This is an on-camera admission that Cresswell scripted Templin's witness statement before she spoke to police — potential witness tampering under O.C.G.A. § 16-10-93. The officer was present. It was never investigated, never noted in the report, and has never been disclosed to the prosecution or the court.
Exhibit P, [00:24:53]Self-Approval Without Supervisor Review
PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONThe report was approved by the authoring officer himself with no supervisor review. Standard procedure for felony-level incidents requires independent supervisor approval precisely to catch fabrications and omissions. The self-approval allowed a report containing at least 8 material failures to be finalized and submitted to prosecutors without a single independent check.
Exhibit AThe Witnesses Could Not Keep Their Story Straight
Every timestamp below is drawn directly from the 31-minute body camera recording (Exhibit P). The report certified no body camera was used.
Key Evidence: Recordings, Affidavits, and Prior Incidents
The following evidence was available to investigators and prosecutors from the outset. To the defendant's knowledge, none of it has been acknowledged in any official proceeding or presented to the court.
The Alleged Victim Confesses
In a recorded call, Joshua Cresswell — the state's complaining witness — admits that he was the aggressor, that Smith got in the way when he was going to hit Oliverius with the pipe, and that key witness Gloria Templin fabricated her account.
The State's Witness Threatens Murder
Just weeks after the incident, Cresswell was recorded issuing a direct death threat against both the defendant and the sole eyewitness. This recording was disclosed to the prosecutor, who has never acknowledged it in any court proceeding.
The Only Eyewitness Confirms Self-Defense
Nicolas Oliverius, the sole person to witness the entire incident, has provided a sworn affidavit confirming that Cresswell armed himself with a metal pipe and that Smith acted solely to defend him. He also confirms that no law enforcement officer has ever contacted him.
Three Months of Prior Violence
Just three months before the June 2022 incident, Cresswell was the documented suspect in a domestic assault investigation for strangling Ms. Smith. Red Bank Police responded and documented the incident. No arrest was made.
The Victim Told Them
Everything.
New evidence — including Facebook messages, two audio recordings, a 60-error enumeration, and a formal judicial misconduct complaint — has fundamentally transformed this case. The alleged victim himself has documented, in writing and on tape, that the prosecution is wrong.
The DA Said: "That's Probably Where the Case Will Die."
An email from the prosecuting District Attorney — contained in the Amended Motion to Dismiss — includes the statement: “That's probably where the case will die.” This is the prosecution's own assessment of its case. The DA acknowledged, in writing, that the prosecution was likely to fail on the merits — and continued it anyway. The case was transferred from Superior Court to State Court — and it was in State Court that the DA made this written assessment. The prosecution continued for more than ten months after this admission, through multiple hearings, three counsel denials, and a post-surgical pro se defendant.
“That's probably where the case will die.”
An email in which the prosecution assesses its own case as likely to fail is favorable to the defense and material to guilt. Non-disclosure is a Brady violation.
Continuing a prosecution the DA privately assessed as likely to fail — for four years — is the definition of malicious prosecution under Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006).
ABA Standards for Criminal Justice § 3-1.2(b): The duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict. Continuing a case the DA expects to fail violates this standard.
"Pick a Story. Stay With It. Damn."
In a Facebook Messenger conversation between Joshua Cresswell and Deashea Smith ("Shay"), Cresswell — the state's complaining witness — instructs Smith to fabricate a consistent narrative for the prosecution while simultaneously telling her he is not pressing charges. "Doodles" is Cresswell's nickname for Smith. This is a written, timestamped record of witness tampering and obstruction of justice directed at the defendant herself.
'Pick a story stay with it' — direct instruction to fabricate testimony. Felony under O.C.G.A. § 16-10-93.
This message directly impeaches the state's complaining witness and must be disclosed to the defense under Brady v. Maryland.
'im not pressing charges ok' — the alleged victim's own statement that the prosecution proceeds against his express wishes.
Cresswell Admits the Pipe Attack
Cresswell is asked why he didn't "hit that son of a bitch with the metal pipe." He confirms the attack was real, states Templin "was not there" and "she lied on you," and says he will tell prosecutors to drop the charges.
Cresswell Threatens to Kill the Eyewitness
Just 10 weeks after the incident, Cresswell is recorded threatening to kill both the defendant and the sole eyewitness. This recording has not been acknowledged in any court filing or hearing transcript available to Defendant. or investigated by law enforcement.
This recording establishes Cresswell's ongoing pattern of threatening behavior toward both the defendant and the eyewitness. It is material to the self-defense claim and to the credibility of the state's complaining witness.
Two Additional Recordings: Cresswell Threatens Nic, Admits to the Attack
"I Didn't Threaten You — I Threatened Nic"
Recorded on September 20, 2022 — three weeks after the death threat recording (Exhibit I / D-1) — this audio captures Cresswell in a conversation with Smith. In it, Cresswell makes a critical admission: when confronted about threatening behavior, he explicitly states "I didn't threaten you — I threatened Nic." This statement is an admission that (1) the threats were real, (2) they were directed at Nic Oliverius, and (3) Cresswell is aware of the distinction. He is not denying the threats — he is clarifying who they were aimed at. This recording directly corroborates the August 30 death threat recording (Exhibit I) and Oliverius's affidavit (Exhibit G). It also establishes that Cresswell's threats against Oliverius were a known, ongoing pattern — not a one-time incident.
Under Brady v. Maryland, this recording is material exculpatory evidence. It corroborates the death threat, establishes Cresswell's ongoing pattern of threatening Oliverius, and directly supports Smith's self-defense claim. To Defendant's knowledge, this recording has not been disclosed to the defense or acknowledged in any court filing.
"I'll See Him Soon — I Promise You"
Recorded on April 3, 2022 — ten weeks before the June 17 incident and just 25 days after the March 9 strangulation — this video captures Cresswell making a direct threat about Oliverius: "I'll see him soon — I promise you." This recording is pre-incident evidence of Cresswell's premeditated intent toward Oliverius. It establishes that Cresswell had been planning to confront Oliverius for months before the June 17 attack. Combined with the Facebook messages (Exhibits B-1 through B-7) from the same period, this video demonstrates that the June 17 attack was not spontaneous — it was the culmination of a documented, months-long pattern of threatening behavior toward Oliverius. To Defendant's knowledge, this recording has not been disclosed to prosecutors, investigated, or acknowledged in any court filing.
This recording is admissible under O.C.G.A. § 24-4-404(b) to show Cresswell's motive, intent, and premeditation. It directly contradicts the prosecution's narrative that the June 17 incident was an unprovoked attack by Smith. Under Brady v. Maryland, this is material exculpatory evidence that the prosecution had an affirmative duty to disclose. To Defendant's knowledge, it has not been disclosed or acknowledged in any hearing reflected in the available transcripts.
A Pattern of Threats, Control, and Violence — In His Own Words
The Facebook Messenger archive between Joshua Cresswell and Nic Oliverius (Deashea Smith's partner) documents a sustained pattern of threatening, controlling, and violent behavior in the weeks before the June 17, 2022 incident. Under O.C.G.A. § 24-4-404(b), this evidence is admissible to show intent, motive, and absence of mistake. It directly corroborates the self-defense claim and establishes Cresswell as the predominant aggressor.
"Praise Him Again Around Me... Every One Gonna Have a Bad Day"
Two months before the incident, Cresswell threatens that if Smith mentions Oliverius in front of him, "every one gonna have a bad day." This is a direct, written threat of violence against Oliverius — the same person Cresswell later attacked with a metal pipe. Sent April 2, 2022; the attack occurred June 17, 2022.
"Shea uf u praise him again around me in front of me or say his God damn name every one gonna have a bad day"
"He Gotta Go Through Me"
The day after the B-1 threat, Cresswell escalates: he states that Oliverius "gotta go through me" and that he will "fuck up some people." This is a direct threat of physical violence against the eyewitness, sent 75 days before the pipe attack. The message also reveals Cresswell's obsessive jealousy as the motive for the June 17 attack.
"...u been doing this shit everytime with nic so so u can be with him but I tell u this he gotta go thru me goes I'm done with him I'm mever gonna have h on my life..."
"...I'm gonna fuck up some people it's not gonna be good Shea... I will fuck up some people and it's ur fault what happens to them..."
"Our Paths Will Cross" — "He Will Never Replace Me"
Hours later the same night, Cresswell sends a series of escalating messages. He states "I will get with nic our paths will cross" — a veiled threat of future confrontation. He then states "he will never replace me I promise u I want let him Shea" — establishing obsessive possessiveness over Smith. This is the psychological pattern of a domestic abuser escalating toward violence.
"...I will get with nic our paths will cross I love you but I can't live like this..."
"That easy for u to just say that he will never replace me I promise u I want let him Shea u think u are gonna do me like this..."
"When I Do I Tend to Do a Lot of Damage" — Prior Jail Time for Violence
In this message, Cresswell makes an unprompted admission of his own violent history: he states that when pushed to his limit, "I tend to do alot of damage and it really never solved anything but alot of jail time fines and restitution." This is a direct, written admission of a prior criminal history involving violence — sent 60 days before the pipe attack.
"Yea I don't like hurting people and I don't like people to hurt me if I'm respected and people try I try I've had to many push me to my limit which is really hard to do but when I do I tend to do alot of damage and it really never solved anything but alot of jail time fines and restitution but I did save alot of money by switching to geico"
"I'm Gonna Fuck Up Some People — It's Your Fault"
On April 21 — 57 days before the pipe attack — Cresswell sends one of the most explicit pre-attack threat messages in the record. He states: "I'm gonna fuck up some people it's ur fault what happens to them Shea." He explicitly assigns responsibility for the forthcoming violence to Smith, establishing the same psychological pattern that played out on June 17 when he attacked Oliverius.
"...So u are running out of time I'm so hurt and I'm gonna fuck up some people it's ur fault what happens to them Shea u never loved me at all why"
"I'm Not Going Out Alone — I'm Taking a Couple With Me"
The most alarming message in the Exhibit B series. On April 22, 2022 — 56 days before the pipe attack — Cresswell sends a message stating he intends to end his own life but "I'm not going out alone I'm taking a couple with me Shea." This is an explicit, written murder-suicide threat naming Smith as a target. It was sent while Cresswell was the state's complaining witness in a pending case. To Defendant's knowledge, this message has not been disclosed or acknowledged in any court filing.
"...I'm sorry for what I'm bout to do I just don't understand why I'm not worth anything to you... I just not gonna live without you just know I love you so much...I'm not going out alone I'm taking a couple with me Shea... I'm putting my brains all over the inside love you always yr doodles soul mate..."
"...I'm done I'm gonna be done with everything I'm not gonna have a no contact order put on me...I will not live under them conditions... take care of yourself... I love you always..."
Three days before the June 17 incident, Cresswell sends two messages to Oliverius that constitute direct pre-attack threats. He states he will "take out the fucking trash" and that he has "the right parts coming for the truck" — an unmistakable reference to arming himself. He also states he "will not go easy on any one that disrespected me or Shea."
In a message to Cresswell, Oliverius documents the controlling behavior he witnessed: Cresswell prevented Smith from using her phone, yelled at her, and created conditions where Oliverius "had no choice" but to comply with Cresswell's demands to avoid triggering a police response. This message corroborates Smith's self-defense claim and establishes Oliverius's direct knowledge of the pattern of control.
Just three weeks after the June 17 incident — while the case was still being investigated — Cresswell sends Oliverius a message stating he will "kill over her" and "kill for her" and "die for her right now without a doubt." This is a direct continuation of the pre-attack threat pattern, sent while Cresswell is the state's complaining witness.
Cresswell messages Oliverius about a house explosion, describing hearing people screaming and being unable to save them. The context establishes continued contact between Cresswell and Oliverius after the incident — directly relevant to the Aug. 30 death threat (Exhibit D-1) which came just five weeks later.
Ten days before the recorded death threat (Aug. 30), Oliverius messages Cresswell documenting the coercive control: he states he "had no choice" because if he raised his voice, "the cops were called" and he "went back to jail." This is Oliverius himself describing the mechanism of Cresswell's control — directly corroborating the self-defense claim.
Six days before the death threat, Cresswell sends a series of messages to Smith that oscillate between emotional manipulation ("Shea if u don't stay then please don't come back my heart can't take this") and implicit threats ("Shea there will be nothing in a week u lied to me again"). This is the classic cycle of coercive control — documented in writing.
On the same day as the recorded death threat (Exhibit D-1), Cresswell sends Facebook messages stating "Nic head is gonna be in a stick" and "ll KK just take u both out then since I'm such a piece of shit." These messages are sent on Aug. 30, 2022 — the exact same day as the audio recording in which Cresswell says "I'm gonna kill you both." The written and audio threats are contemporaneous.
In a February 2023 Facebook message conversation, Jeannie Wallace Holman — a third-party witness — provides a detailed firsthand account of witnessing Cresswell's physical violence against Smith: hands around her throat, hitting the car window, and kicking the car door. Holman states she called the police. This is independent corroboration of the pattern of violence, from a witness who has never been contacted by prosecutors.
In a WhatsApp message to Smith, Cresswell explicitly states he is "not pressing charges" but acknowledges the case "still has to go to court." He also states he "tried lying for you" to the district attorney and that the DA "said bullshit." This message is a direct admission that Cresswell attempted to provide false information to the prosecution — and that the prosecution was aware of the contested nature of his account.
Cresswell sends Smith a message claiming she "tried to kill me" three times and that he "can't lie for u on this one." This message is significant for two reasons: (1) it is inconsistent with his recorded confession (Exhibit D) in which he admits he was the aggressor; and (2) it demonstrates that Cresswell was actively attempting to coordinate a story with Smith — the very definition of witness tampering.
Cresswell messages Smith stating he "rented a fucking truck" to come get her and that he "got u a new bond" and is "responsible for u to be at court." This message documents Cresswell's active role in controlling Smith's legal situation — including posting her bond and claiming responsibility for her court appearance — while simultaneously being the complaining witness against her.
Two months after the June 17 incident, Nic Oliverius — the eyewitness — directly confronts Cresswell about his threatening behavior. Oliverius tells Cresswell: "If I so as much raised my voice to you and the cops were called I went back to jail and all u did was threaten me w such... And all you did was yell at me and put me down." He also states: "Maybe if you didn't constantly threaten my ride." Cresswell responds dismissively: "U chose to leave I didn't." This exchange corroborates Oliverius's affidavit (Exhibit G) and demonstrates that Cresswell's pattern of threatening behavior toward Oliverius was ongoing and documented.
The following morning, Cresswell responds to Oliverius's confrontation with hostility: "Would u shut up with that shit I had ever fucking rite so are u gonna dwell on that bullshit or u gonna ask me how I'm doing damn." He then calls Oliverius and the call lasts 42 seconds. This exchange demonstrates Cresswell's pattern of deflecting accountability and his ongoing hostile relationship with the prosecution's key eyewitness. It also establishes that Cresswell and Oliverius were in direct communication in the weeks after the June 17 incident.
On August 24, 2022 — 10 weeks after the incident and 6 days before the death threat recording — Cresswell messages Smith attempting to control her bond and court attendance. He tells her he has "gotten her a new bond" and that he is "responsible for u to be at court." He states: "Get ur shit ready cause i am coming." This is coercive control: Cresswell is using Smith's legal situation as leverage to control her physical movements and force her to appear with him. He also tells her: "Shea if u don't stay then please don't come back my heart can't take this" — emotional manipulation alongside the legal coercion.
This is the same date as the death threat audio recording (Exhibit I / D-1). In these Facebook messages to Oliverius on August 30, 2022, Cresswell escalates to explicit murder threats: "Nic head is gonna be in a stick" and "II KK just take u both out then since I'm such a piece of shit." He also makes a sexually degrading comment about Smith. This written evidence — on the same day as the audio death threat — corroborates and amplifies the audio recording. Together, Exhibit B-14(a) and Exhibit D-1 establish August 30, 2022 as a day of coordinated, multi-platform death threats against both the defendant and the eyewitness.
On February 5, 2023 — one day after Cresswell's confession recording — Jeannie Wallace Holman, a third-party witness, independently confirms the strangulation to Nic Oliverius in a Facebook message conversation. Holman states: "Yes, I witnessed him put his hands around her throat, grabbing her and verbally threatening her. He hit my passenger car window a couple of times after she got in it and then kicked the door on my side... which is why I called the police." This is a second independent eyewitness account of Cresswell's violence against Smith, entirely separate from Oliverius's affidavit. Holman also describes Cresswell's controlling behavior: he told Smith she couldn't leave without him and threatened that she wouldn't get to rehab if she left.
In this text message to Smith, Cresswell simultaneously confirms he is not pressing charges and attempts to coordinate her legal strategy. He states: "I'm not pressing charges they know this already but it still has to go to court." He then attempts to direct her legal defense: "I have copy of report right here in my hand Nanny is the one who said shit against you not me I tried to get u out of being in trouble but they would not listen to me they only listened to nanny." He also tells her: "stop bullshitting me about body cams cause they didn't have them on during statement." This is the complaining witness directing the defendant's legal strategy, confirming he is not pressing charges, and making a false claim about body cameras — all in one message.
In this message, Cresswell tells Smith that the District Attorney directly confronted him about the incident and that he attempted to lie for her: "hey u need to call I me now our story on what happened at trail mith the cut on my face district attorney just tore into my ass i said it wasan accident he said bullshit i said ok whats going somebody body has a video of it he wouldn't. Give me names he saying it clearly shows u intentionally doing do it i tried lieing for you we need to talk about call me please." He then speculates about who provided the video: "Its got to be ben or his 2 moms who else could it be doodles." This message is extraordinary: Cresswell is telling Smith that he lied to the DA on her behalf, that the DA has video evidence, and that he needs to coordinate their story. This is witness tampering and obstruction of justice.
Cresswell tells Smith he has rented a truck to come get her and is "almost there." He then tells her he has posted a new bond and that he is "responsible for u to be at court." The message is a continuation of the coercive control documented in Exhibit B-13(a): Cresswell using Smith's legal situation to control her physical movements. He is the state's complaining witness physically forcing the defendant to travel with him and appear at court under his supervision.
In a message to Smith, Cresswell provides an unsolicited admission of his abusive behavior, stating that "being high robbed me from my self" and that he "didn't see" what he was doing. He expresses remorse and acknowledges the abuse. This message is significant because it is a contemporaneous admission of the pattern of abusive behavior — directly corroborating Smith's self-defense claim and the eyewitness accounts.
Across more than 28 documented messages spanning 10 months, Cresswell established an unbroken pattern: pre-attack threats against Oliverius (B-1 through B-7), post-attack written and audio death threats (B-9, B-14(a), Exhibit D-1), coercive control over Smith's bond and court attendance (B-13(a), B-19), admitted lying to the District Attorney (B-18), attempted coordination of false testimony (B-17, B-18), a second independent eyewitness confirming strangulation (B-15(a)), and a direct admission of his abusive behavior (B-20). Not one of these messages has been acknowledged by the Solicitor-General's office. Not one has been presented to the court.
"I Find You Have the Ability to Get a Job"
— Said to a Woman Whose Face Was Torn Off by a Dog
At the February 9, 2026 hearing, Smith appeared pro se — without counsel, without any of her 13 motions having been heard, and without any acknowledgment of the recorded confession or death threat. She informed the court she had recently undergone surgery after a dog attack, was relying on food stamps, and could not travel. The court's response is documented verbatim in the rough draft transcript.
The Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies to misdemeanor cases where imprisonment is possible. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963). The court has denied counsel three times to the same defendant with the same financial circumstances.
The court found Smith indigent in February 2025, denied it in June 2024 and August 2025, and denied it again in February 2026 — for the same defendant with materially identical financial circumstances. This inconsistency is arbitrary and capricious.
The court offered to schedule a jury trial for the following Monday — four years after the incident, with no counsel, no hearing on any of the 13 pending motions, and no acknowledgment of the recorded confession or death threat.
Discharge Diagnosis: "Dog Bite of Face" — Oral Maxillofacial Surgery
The University of Tennessee Medical Center Discharge Summary (MRN: 2497031, Admission: Nov. 8, 2025) documents Smith's hospitalization for a dog bite of the face requiring oral maxillofacial surgery. Discharge instructions include: no driving while on pain medication, soft diet only, follow-up with oral surgeon within one week, and return to ED for fever, difficulty swallowing, or uncontrolled bleeding. The court's finding that Smith had "the ability to get a job" was made three months after this hospitalization, without any inquiry into her recovery status.
The court stated on Feb. 9, 2026: "I find you have the ability to get a job and work where you previously were employed."The medical record shows Smith was hospitalized for facial surgery on Nov. 8, 2025 — 93 days before that hearing — with discharge instructions prohibiting driving and requiring a soft diet. She told the court her surgeons had not yet cleared her. The court made no inquiry into the medical record.
60 Enumerated Errors — Any One Justifies Reversal
A formal appellate-style enumeration of 60 distinct errors across eight categories has been filed. The document concludes: "This is FAR more than enough to disqualify the judge, vacate every ruling ever made, trigger JQC intervention, justify mandamus/prohibition, justify emergency continuance, and justify federal intervention."
The Court Record: Counsel, Hearings, and Motions
The court record documents repeated denials of appointed counsel, a conflicted attorney's withdrawal without notice, thirteen motions filed and not heard, and a series of proceedings conducted without a record. Each entry below cites a docket entry, transcript, or exhibit.
The Counsel Shell Game
Application denied despite income of ~$675/month gross. No written order filed with clerk.
Court finds Smith indigent. Michael Caldwell appointed. Same income, same circumstances.
Court reverses indigence finding. Application never filed with clerk — held 'in judge's office for advisement.'
"I Think There Were Bar Association Complaints Filed"
— Said on the Record, in Open Court, About a Confidential Bar Complaint
The August 4, 2025 calendar call transcript documents the sequence in full. The court reveals that it knows about a confidential bar complaint — information that could only have come from Caldwell ex parte — and uses it as the stated reason for refusing to appoint any further counsel. Georgia Bar Rule 4-221(b) prohibits disclosure of bar complaints. The court's open-court mention of the complaint, and its use as a basis for denying counsel, constitutes both a violation of that rule and a textbook instance of judicial retaliation.
The Missing Record
Correspondence with the Catoosa County Clerk of Court confirms that critical hearings were conducted without a court reporter, leaving no official transcript. The August 4, 2025 indigency application — from the hearing where the judge made retaliatory statements on the record — was never filed with the clerk.
A judge retaining an indigency application "for advisement" for months — without filing it — is an extraordinary and irregular practice that deprives the defendant of a reviewable record.
Filed But Unheard Motions
13 Total — 0 HeardThese motions represent a total of 163 pages of substantive legal argument — including motions for immunity, dismissal, and to suppress evidence — filed by a pro se, dyslexic defendant. The court has refused to hear or rule on any of them.
Emergency Motion to Recuse and Disqualify Judge Goulart
Filed February 26, 2026 — six days after the February 20, 2026 hearing at which the court denied counsel for the third time and declined to rule on any pending motions. The motion documents five independent grounds for recusal.
Caldwell Conflict of Interest — Undisclosed
Judge Caldwell, who presides on the same bench as Judge Goulart, was Defendant's appointed counsel at the time he was actively campaigning for the judgeship. He withdrew seven days before his appointment was announced. His conflict was never disclosed to the court or the defendant. Judge Goulart has declined to address this conflict on the record.
Retaliation for Bar Complaint
After Defendant filed a State Bar complaint against Caldwell, the court: (a) declined to reappoint any counsel; (b) stated from the bench that Defendant "looks able-bodied" and should hire a lawyer; (c) refused to rule on any of the 13 pending motions. The sequence is documented in the August 4, 2025 transcript.
Ex Parte Communication
The court communicated with Caldwell regarding his withdrawal outside the presence of the defendant and without notice. The withdrawal order was entered without a hearing. The certificate of service listed an address the defendant had not used in years.
Open-Court Disclosure of Confidential Bar Complaint
At the August 4, 2025 hearing, the court disclosed the existence of Defendant's confidential bar complaint against Caldwell in open court, in the presence of the prosecutor, without Defendant's consent. This disclosure is documented in the transcript.
Thirteen Motions Filed and Not Heard
Defendant has filed 13 substantive motions totaling 163 pages, including motions to dismiss, suppress, and for immunity. The court has not scheduled a hearing on any of them. The February 9, 2026 hearing addressed only the trial date and counsel status.
The motion was filed pro se. No ruling has been entered as of the date of this publication. Trial is currently scheduled for April 13, 2026.
What the Record Shows,
Taken as a Whole
The available record in State v. Deashea L. Smith raises serious questions at every stage of the proceeding: the adequacy of the initial investigation, the handling of exculpatory evidence, the conduct of appointed counsel, and the consistency of the court's rulings on counsel and motions.
The defendant is a domestic violence survivor with minimal means, recovering from surgery, who has been required to represent herself at trial. The complainant — who was recorded admitting what happened — was never charged. Trial is April 13, 2026. She still has no attorney.
The record is complete. The question is whether anyone with the authority to act will review it.
The alleged victim confesses on tape to being the aggressor.
The state's witness threatens to murder the defendant.
The sole eyewitness confirms self-defense under oath.
Three months of prior assault by the alleged victim.
163 pages of legal argument. Not one hearing scheduled.
Sixth Amendment right to counsel denied repeatedly and inconsistently.
Downloadable Case Memos
These concise reference documents are formatted for attorneys, oversight bodies, and journalists. Each memo is self-contained with verbatim transcript citations and exhibit references.
Documents the full counsel sequence, Caldwell's undisclosed judicial candidacy, the fraudulent certificate of service, the ex parte communication, the open-court disclosure of a confidential bar complaint, and the Emergency Recusal Motion filed February 26, 2026. Includes applicable legal standards.
Catalogues every documented contradiction between the State's charging theory and the available evidence: police report vs. BWC footage, Cresswell's own recorded admissions, the prior strangulation, the DA email, the eyewitness account, and the inverted indigency record.
"The continued prosecution of Deashea Smith is a stain on the Catoosa County justice system. It is a testament to what happens when the powerful are protected, and the vulnerable are crushed."
Filings Docket
All substantive filings from the official PeachCourt docket. Subpoenas, bondsman notices, and party notices omitted. As of February 26, 2026 — 83 total docket entries.
Prosecutor: Douglas R. Woodruff, Solicitor General · P.O. Box 1010, Ringgold, GA 30736 · (706) 965-4477
Emergency Motion to Recuse and Disqualify Judge Ronald C. Goulart, with supporting affidavits from Deashea L. Smith and eyewitness Nicolas Oliverius, plus an index of exhibits. Grounds include the Caldwell conflict of interest, off-record proceedings, 13 unheard substantive motions, and retaliation for a bar complaint.
The Recording They Said
Didn't Exist
The police report certifies under oath that no body-worn camera was used. The following 31-minute recording was captured by the responding officer's body camera on June 17, 2022. It contradicts the official report on at least 12 material points.
▶ Click any timestamp below to jump directly to that moment in the video.
Contradiction Tracker
Every entry below documents a direct conflict between two official statements, rulings, or pieces of evidence — each with a date, source, and exhibit citation. These are not interpretations. They are the record.
"Application denied — Smith found NOT indigent. Income ~$675/month gross."
"Application approved — Smith found INDIGENT. Same income, same circumstances."
The court applied opposite legal conclusions to materially identical facts within 8 months, with no change in Smith's financial circumstances and no written explanation for either ruling.
Arbitrary and capricious judicial conduct. The inconsistency suggests the June 2024 denial was pretextual, not based on the indigency standard.
"Smith found indigent. Counsel appointed."
"Court reverses indigence finding. Application never filed with Clerk — held 'in judge's office for advisement.'"
The court approved counsel in February and denied it in August for the same defendant with the same financial circumstances — a third inconsistent ruling in 14 months.
Pattern of retaliatory indigency rulings. The missing August application prevents appellate review, which may be intentional.
"Certificate of Service certifies notice was mailed to Smith's address."
"Smith learned of the withdrawal only when she appeared for a scheduled hearing and discovered she had no attorney."
The Certificate of Service certifies a completed act of notification. Smith's account — corroborated by the fact that she appeared for a hearing expecting counsel — establishes she was never actually notified.
Fraudulent Certificate of Service. Caldwell certified service to an address he knew or should have known was not current.
"'No body-worn camera was used during this investigation.'"
"31-minute body camera recording of the entire investigation exists, was transcribed, and directly contradicts 12 material claims in the report."
The report certifies under oath that no body camera was used. A 31-minute recording of the same investigation exists.
Deliberate concealment of exculpatory evidence. The false certification prevented prosecutors, defense counsel, and the court from knowing the recording existed.
"Victim was 'stabbed in the neck.'"
"EMS personnel confirm laceration to the chin. The wound is visible on camera."
The neck and chin are anatomically distinct. A neck wound implies a potentially lethal attack; a chin laceration is consistent with a defensive struggle.
The false injury description inflated the apparent severity of the alleged assault and infected the charging decision.
"States he got scratches 'deflecting her, just trying to get out of the house' — implying a violent struggle inside the residence."
"Cresswell is seen walking calmly out the front door and strolling to the driveway with no signs of distress."
A person who just fought off a violent attacker does not stroll calmly to the driveway. The physical demeanor directly contradicts the verbal claim made 5 minutes earlier.
Cresswell fabricated the struggle narrative. The calm exit is inconsistent with his account of a violent confrontation.
"'I got a text he told me to come quick.'"
"'Call by Josh.'"
Within the same 3-minute interview, Templin gives two different accounts of how she was summoned — a text message and a phone call.
Templin's account is internally inconsistent. Combined with her admission at [00:24:53] that Cresswell coached her testimony, her entire account is unreliable.
"Indigency hearing held. Application submitted. Court makes ruling."
"'I do not have an application and order for August 4, 2025 that is filed.' GSCCCA: 'judge has it in his office for advisement.'"
A hearing was held and an application was submitted, but the application was never filed with the Clerk. The judge retained it personally for months.
Deliberate suppression of the record. A judge retaining an indigency application prevents appellate review of the ruling — which may be the intent.
"Cresswell is the victim. Smith attacked him without provocation."
"'I'm gonna bash your f-ing head in... He caused the situation... you took up for him. So you put yourself in that.' 'She wasn't even there... she lied on you.'"
The state's own complaining witness, in a recorded call, admits he was the aggressor, that Smith acted defensively, and that key witness Templin fabricated her account.
Malicious prosecution. The prosecution has maintained charges for four years while possessing (or ignoring) a recorded confession from the complaining witness.
Record-Gap Map
What is missing from the record is not a clerical accident. Each gap below is documented by proof that the item should exist, and each gap causes a specific, identifiable constitutional harm. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Indigency Application — August 4, 2025
Every indigency ruling must be supported by a filed application and written order, reviewable by the Clerk of Court and available for appellate review.
Clerk of Court letter (Oct. 24, 2025): 'I do not have an application and order for August 4, 2025 that is filed.' GSCCCA eCertification (Nov. 6, 2025): 'judge has it in his office for advisement.'
The application and order are not in the court file. The judge retained them personally for 3+ months.
Blocks appellate review of the indigency denial. Deprives Smith of a reviewable record. Violates due process under Mathews v. Eldridge.
Transcript — August 4, 2025 Hearing
Criminal proceedings must be transcribed by a court reporter. The transcript is required for any appeal or post-conviction review.
Clerk of Court letter (Oct. 24, 2025): 'There is still no transcript filed in your case at this time.' Court Reporter emails (Exhibit O) confirm the hearing was conducted without a reporter.
No transcript exists for the hearing at which the judge made retaliatory statements and denied counsel.
Prevents any appellate court from reviewing what was said on the record. The judge's retaliatory statements are unverifiable.
Supervisor Review — Original Police Report
Standard police procedure for felony-level incidents requires supervisor review and approval of the incident report before it is finalized.
Exhibit A shows the report was approved by the authoring officer himself — Officer Gross — with no supervisor signature or review notation.
No supervisor review. The report was self-approved by the same officer who fabricated the 'drug dealer' statement and falsely certified no body camera was used.
Removes the institutional check that would have caught the fabrications. The false report became the unchallenged foundation for the arrest warrant and prosecution.
Predominant Aggressor Analysis
O.C.G.A. § 17-4-20.1 mandates a written predominant aggressor determination in family violence calls where both parties have injuries.
Exhibit A (police report) contains no predominant aggressor analysis. Exhibit A-1 (Red Bank report) documents prior violence by Cresswell. Exhibit G (Oliverius affidavit) confirms Cresswell was the aggressor.
No predominant aggressor analysis in the report, despite mandatory statutory requirement and clear evidence of Cresswell's prior violence.
Statutory violation. The missing analysis allowed the wrong person to be arrested. It is the root cause of the entire prosecution.
Interview of Eyewitness Nicolas Oliverius
Basic investigative procedure requires interviewing all available witnesses. Oliverius witnessed the incident and was reachable.
Exhibit G (Oliverius affidavit): 'No law enforcement officer has ever contacted me.' Exhibit P (BWC): Oliverius is visible on camera and never approached by officers.
No interview of the only eyewitness to the entire incident — ever. Not at the scene, not in the four years since.
Brady violation. Oliverius's account is material exculpatory evidence. The prosecution has an affirmative duty to disclose it. It has never been disclosed.
Disclosure of Body Camera Footage to Prosecution
Brady v. Maryland requires disclosure of all material exculpatory evidence. The body camera footage directly contradicts the police report.
Exhibit A falsely certifies no body camera was used. Exhibit P is the 31-minute recording. To Defendant's knowledge, the prosecution has not acknowledged the recording in any court filing.
No disclosure of the body camera footage to the prosecution or defense. The false certification in the report concealed its existence.
Brady violation. The recording contradicts 12 material claims in the charging document. Its suppression infected every subsequent proceeding.
Written Order — June 17, 2024 Counsel Denial
A denial of indigent defense counsel must be supported by written findings of fact explaining why the defendant does not qualify.
Exhibit K documents the hearing date. No written order has been filed with the Clerk of Court. No findings of fact exist.
No written order, no findings of fact, no explanation for the denial.
Prevents appellate review. Without written findings, no court can determine whether the indigency standard was correctly applied.
Notice to Smith of Caldwell's Withdrawal
ABA Standards § 4-1.3 (Duty to Communicate) and § 4-8.3 (Withdrawal) require actual notice to the client before withdrawal, including steps to protect the client's rights.
Exhibit J (Caldwell's motion) certifies service by mail. Smith's appearance at a subsequent hearing expecting counsel establishes she never received actual notice.
Actual notice of the withdrawal. The Certificate of Service certified an address Caldwell knew or should have known was not current.
Smith was left without counsel without knowing it. She could not seek substitute counsel, request a continuance, or protect her rights because she did not know she needed to.
Legal Standard Checklist
Each issue below states what the law requires, what happened in this case, the proof, and the specific relief it triggers. This is not argument — it is the application of established law to documented facts.
Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972): The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to appointed counsel in any criminal prosecution that may result in actual imprisonment, regardless of the offense classification. The court must conduct a proper indigency inquiry before denying counsel.
Smith was denied counsel three times (June 2024, August 2025, February 2026) despite facing a charge that carries potential imprisonment. The June 2024 and August 2025 denials were made without written findings. The February 2026 denial was made despite Smith's documented medical condition and reliance on food stamps.
- →Exhibit K (June 2024 denial)
- →Exhibits B, C (August 2025 denial)
- →Feb. 9, 2026 Hearing Transcript
- →Exhibit H-1 (approved Feb. 2025 — same income)
Dismissal of charges, or at minimum, appointment of counsel and continuation of all proceedings until counsel is secured. Any conviction obtained without counsel is void. See Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963).
The court must apply a consistent, objective standard to determine indigency. Arbitrary reversals of indigency findings — applying different outcomes to identical financial circumstances — violate due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The court approved counsel in February 2025 and denied it in June 2024 and August 2025 for the same defendant with materially identical financial circumstances. No written findings explain any of the three rulings. The August 2025 application was never filed with the Clerk.
- →Exhibit K (June 2024 denial)
- →Exhibit H-1 (Feb. 2025 approval)
- →Clerk Letter (Oct. 24, 2025)
- →GSCCCA eCertification (Nov. 6, 2025)
The inconsistent rulings constitute an abuse of discretion. Relief: appointment of counsel, expungement of any adverse rulings made while Smith was unrepresented, and an evidentiary hearing on the indigency standard applied.
Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980): An attorney with an actual conflict of interest who fails to disclose it provides constitutionally deficient representation. A sitting judge cannot simultaneously serve as criminal defense counsel — this is an un-waivable conflict under Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.7.
Michael Caldwell was appointed as defense counsel on February 3, 2025. He was confirmed as a Ringgold City Council judge on April 14, 2025. He never disclosed this conflict to Smith. He continued to nominally represent her for seven days before filing a withdrawal motion — sent by mail to an address where she no longer resided.
- →Exhibit K (City Council Agenda — Caldwell confirmed)
- →Exhibit J (withdrawal motion)
- →Exhibit L (order permitting withdrawal)
Any proceedings conducted during Caldwell's conflicted representation are voidable. Relief: new counsel, re-hearing of any matters decided during the conflicted period, and referral to the State Bar for investigation of Caldwell's conduct.
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963): The prosecution must disclose all material exculpatory evidence. Evidence is material if there is a reasonable probability that disclosure would have produced a different result. The duty is affirmative — the prosecution cannot wait to be asked.
To Defendant's knowledge, the prosecution has not disclosed or acknowledged in any court filing: (1) the 31-minute body camera recording (Exhibit P) that contradicts the police report; (2) the March 4, 2023 recorded confession (Exhibit D); (3) the August 30, 2022 death threat (Exhibit I); (4) the eyewitness affidavit of Nicolas Oliverius (Exhibit G).
- →Exhibit P (BWC — not in any court filing)
- →Exhibit D (confession — not in any court filing)
- →Exhibit I (death threat — not in any court filing)
- →Exhibit G (eyewitness affidavit — not in any court filing)
Dismissal of charges, or at minimum, a Brady hearing requiring the prosecution to account for each item. Any conviction obtained without disclosure is subject to reversal. See Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999).
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972): Courts weigh four factors — length of delay, reason for delay, defendant's assertion of the right, and prejudice to the defendant. A delay of more than one year is presumptively prejudicial and triggers full Barker analysis.
The incident occurred June 17, 2022. As of February 2026, the case has been pending for 44 months — nearly four years — with no trial date set, 13 motions unheard, and no resolution. The delay has been caused by the court's own procedural failures (denial of counsel, off-record proceedings, missing applications) rather than by the defendant.
- →Case docket (44 months pending)
- →13 unheard motions
- →Feb. 9, 2026 Hearing Transcript (no trial date)
Dismissal with prejudice. The delay is presumptively prejudicial, the reason for delay is attributable to the court and prosecution, Smith has consistently asserted her rights, and the prejudice is documented (medical condition, inability to work, ongoing legal jeopardy).
Georgia's Family Violence Act imposes non-discretionary mandatory duties on responding officers in family violence calls: (1) conduct a predominant aggressor determination; (2) consider prior history of violence; (3) interview all available witnesses. These duties are not discretionary.
No predominant aggressor analysis was conducted. Cresswell's March 9, 2022 strangulation of Smith (Exhibit A-1) was available and never referenced. Nicolas Oliverius — the only eyewitness — was known, reachable, and never contacted. The officer declared Cresswell 'just the victim' at timestamp [00:16:51] before conducting any investigation.
- →Exhibit A (no analysis)
- →Exhibit A-1 (prior violence ignored)
- →Exhibit G (eyewitness never contacted)
- →Exhibit P [00:16:51]
The statutory violation is the root cause of the wrongful arrest. Relief: dismissal of charges, or suppression of the arrest warrant as constitutionally defective (fruit of the poisonous tree).
The Law Condemns
Every Stage of This Prosecution
Three controlling and persuasive precedents — each from federal circuit courts — apply with direct, point-by-point force to the documented facts of this case. Together, they establish that the arrest, the warrant, and the continued prosecution of Deashea Smith are unconstitutional under settled law.
Kingsland v. City of Miami
Holmes v. Kucynda
BeVier v. Hucal
Franks v. Delaware
O.C.G.A. § 17-4-20.1 — Mandatory Duties Violated
Georgia's Family Violence Act imposes non-discretionary mandatory duties on responding officers. The 2023 Georgia Code requires a predominant aggressor determination when both parties have injuries, consideration of prior violence history, and interviews of all available witnesses. Every one of these duties was violated in this case.
No analysis conducted despite Cresswell's prior strangulation (Exhibit A-1), armed attack (Exhibit G), and death threat (Exhibit D-1)
March 9, 2022 Red Bank assault report (Exhibits I, A-1) was available and never referenced
Nicolas Oliverius — the sole eyewitness — was never contacted by any law enforcement officer (Exhibit G)
Officers never entered the trailer, never documented the physical environment, and never verified any claims
All Exhibits — Click to Open
Every exhibit referenced in this analysis is available in full below. Click any exhibit marker to open the original document in a new tab.
Catoosa County Police Report
The initial incident report filed by responding officers. Contains fabricated witness statements, false certification of no body camera, and incorrect wound location.
Red Bank Police Report — Prior Assault
Documents Cresswell as the suspect in a prior domestic assault against Smith just three months before the June 2022 incident. Never referenced in the June investigation.
Body Camera Transcript — Templin Hill
31-minute transcript of the responding officer's body camera footage. Directly contradicts the police report on multiple material points, including the injury location and witness statements.
Audio Confession of Joshua Cresswell
Recorded call in which the state's complaining witness admits he was the aggressor, that Smith acted defensively, and that key witness Gloria Templin fabricated her account.
Cresswell Death Threat Transcript
Transcript of a recorded death threat by Cresswell against both Smith and eyewitness Oliverius: 'I'm gonna kill you both.' Disclosed to the prosecutor, who continued the case anyway.
Affidavit of Deashea Smith
Sworn statement by the defendant detailing the incident from her perspective, including Cresswell's prior violence, the attack on Oliverius, and her act of self-defense.
Affidavit of Nicolas Oliverius
Sworn statement by the sole eyewitness confirming that Cresswell armed himself with a metal pipe and threatened to attack him. Oliverius was not at the scene when police arrived and was never contacted by any law enforcement officer, investigator, or prosecutor.
Catoosa Misdemeanor Accusation
The formal misdemeanor accusation filed against Smith. Contains material factual errors including the wrong injury location and incorrect defendant address.
Red Bank Police Report
The Red Bank Police Department's documentation of the March 2022 prior assault by Cresswell against Smith.
Motion to Withdraw — Caldwell
Motion filed by appointed counsel Michael Caldwell to withdraw due to an 'un-waivable conflict of interest' — his appointment as a Ringgold City Council judge, which he failed to disclose to his client.
Application for Counsel — February 3, 2025
Second application for appointed counsel. The court found Smith indigent and appointed Michael Caldwell — the same financial circumstances that were denied in June 2024.
Application for Counsel — June 17, 2025
Third application for counsel, filed on the three-year anniversary of the incident. The August 4, 2025 hearing on this application was conducted off the record; the application was never filed with the clerk.
State Court Hearing — August 4, 2025
Transcript of the August 4, 2025 hearing. The court reversed its indigency finding and denied counsel. The judge retained the application 'in his office for advisement' without filing it with the clerk.
Filed But Unheard Motions
Compilation of 13 substantive motions totaling 163 pages filed by the pro se defendant. Includes motions for immunity, dismissal, and to suppress evidence. Not one has been heard.
Court Reporter — Off-Record Correspondence
Email correspondence confirming that critical hearings were conducted without a court reporter and that the August 4 indigency application was never filed with the clerk.
Ethical Violations — Michael Caldwell
Summary of ethical and constitutional violations by appointed counsel Michael Caldwell, including failure to communicate, conflict of interest, and improper withdrawal.
Jeannie Holmann — Facebook Message Statement
Facebook message from Jeannie Holmann documenting the March 9, 2022 strangulation assault by Cresswell against Smith. Independent corroboration of the prior violence pattern.
John Lukach Witness Statement — Page 1
Two-page written statement by John Lukach documenting Cresswell's pattern of violence and Smith's calls for help. Lukach was never contacted by law enforcement.
John Lukach Witness Statement — Page 2
Continuation of John Lukach's written statement. Corroborates the prior violence and Smith's self-defense claim.
Facebook Message — Apr. 2 'Praise Him Again'
Cresswell threatens that 'every one gonna have a bad day' if Smith praises Oliverius again. Establishes controlling and threatening behavior six weeks before the incident.
Facebook Message — Apr. 3 'Gotta Go Through Me'
Cresswell states Oliverius 'gotta go thru me' and expresses violent intent toward both Smith and Oliverius.
Facebook Message — Apr. 3 'Paths Will Cross'
Cresswell promises he will not let Smith move on: 'I want let him Shea u think u are gonna do me like this and I m just walking away non no no.'
Facebook Message — Apr. 17 'Push to the Limit'
Cresswell admits: 'when I do I tend to do alot of damage and it really never solved anything but alot of jail time fines and restitution.' Admission of prior violent history.
Facebook Message — Apr. 21 'Your Fault'
Cresswell states: 'I'm so hurt and I'm gonna fuck up some people it's ur fault what happens to them Shea.' Direct threat of violence against third parties.
Facebook Message — Apr. 22 'Not Going Out Alone'
The most alarming message: 'I'm not going out alone I'm taking a couple with me Shea... I'm putting my brains all over the inside.' Explicit threat of murder-suicide directed at Smith and Oliverius.
Facebook Message — Apr. 21–22 'Take Out the Trash'
Cresswell states he will 'take out the fucking trash' and 'will not go easy on any one that disrespected me or Shea.' Also references 'the right parts coming for the truck' — a contextual reference to arming himself. Sent 56 days before the pipe attack.
Facebook Message — Nic to Josh (Control Pattern)
Oliverius messages Cresswell documenting the controlling behavior: Cresswell prevented Smith from using her phone, yelled at her, and created conditions where Oliverius 'had no choice' but to comply. Corroborates Smith's self-defense claim and Exhibit G.
Facebook Message — Jul. 5–6 'I Will Kill Over Her'
Three weeks after the incident, while Cresswell is the state's complaining witness, he sends Oliverius: 'u love her I will kill over her I kill for her I will die for her right now without a doubt.' A direct murder threat against the eyewitness.
Facebook Message — Jul. 25 (Continued Contact)
Cresswell messages Oliverius 38 days after the incident, maintaining contact. Establishes the timeline leading to the Aug. 30 death threat (Exhibit D-1) five weeks later.
Facebook Message — Aug. 19–20 'I Had No Choice'
Oliverius documents Cresswell's coercive control: 'I had no choice if I so as much raised my voice to you and the cops were called I went back to jail and all u did was threaten me.' Sent 10 days before the death threat (Exhibit D-1).
Facebook Message — Aug. 24 'Nothing in a Week'
Six days before the death threat: 'Shea there will be nothing in a week u lied to me again.' Followed immediately by emotional manipulation: 'Shea if u don't stay then please don't come back my heart can't take this.' Classic coercive control cycle documented in writing.
Facebook Message — Aug. 30 'Take U Both Out' (same day as audio death threat)
On the same day as the audio death threat (Exhibit D-1): 'Nic head is gonna be in a stick' and 'll KK just take u both out then since I'm such a piece of shit.' Written and audio threats are contemporaneous. Corroborates Exhibit D-1.
Jeannie Wallace Holman — Strangulation Witness (Feb. 5, 2023)
Third-party witness Jeannie Wallace Holman confirms: 'Yes, I witnessed him put his hands around her throat, grabbing her and verbally threatening her. He hit my passenger car window a couple of times after she got in it and then kicked the door on my side... which is why I called the police.' Never contacted by law enforcement or prosecutors.
WhatsApp — Cresswell 'I'm Not Pressing Charges'
Cresswell to Smith: 'I'm not pressing charges they know this already but it still has to go to court.' He also admits: 'I tried lieing for you' to the DA, who 'said bullshit.' The complaining witness is not pressing charges and admitted to attempting false testimony.
Facebook Message — Cresswell 'I Cant Lie for U'
Cresswell to Smith: 'Ur in alot of trouble u tried to kill me from what im hearing 3 times... I cant lie for u on this one.' Contradicts his March 4, 2023 confession (Exhibit D) and demonstrates active coordination of testimony.
Facebook Message — Cresswell 'I Got U a New Bond'
Cresswell to Smith: 'I got u a new bond they are giving dropping his im responsible for u to be at court now u have to come with me.' The complaining witness posted the defendant's bond and declared himself responsible for her court appearance — coercive control over a criminal defendant.
Facebook Message — Cresswell Admission of Abuse
Cresswell to Smith: 'being high robbed me from my self... i know u told me few times but the dope blinded me i just didnt see that i was doing it... im so sorry.' Contemporaneous admission of the pattern of abusive behavior. Directly corroborates Smith's self-defense claim.
Arraignment Transcript — June 17, 2024
Transcript of the arraignment held on the exact two-year anniversary of the incident. Smith appears pro se, enters a not-guilty plea, and immediately identifies the core problem: 'These are not witnesses. These are the ones that actually attacked me. The only witness is not on the report.'
Contradictions & Shifting Narratives Analysis
Comprehensive point-by-point analysis of the contradictions between the police report, the body camera footage, and witness statements. Documents the systematic nature of the fabrications.
Police Report vs. Body Cam — Side-by-Side Analysis
Side-by-side comparison of each claim in the police report against the corresponding body camera footage. Of 30 claims, only 10 (33%) were verified; 12 (40%) were directly contradicted.
Application for Counsel — February 3, 2025
The February 2025 application for indigent defense counsel that was approved. Documents Smith's financial circumstances: food stamps, minimal income, inability to afford private counsel.
City Council Agenda — April 15, 2025 (Caldwell Confirmed)
Ringgold City Council agenda confirming Michael Caldwell's appointment as a City Council judge on April 15, 2025 — creating the un-waivable conflict of interest he never disclosed to his client.
City Council Agenda — April 28, 2025
Ringgold City Council agenda from April 28, 2025, further documenting Caldwell's role as a sitting judge during the period he nominally represented Smith.
Caldwell Motion to Withdraw
Motion filed by Caldwell to withdraw as defense counsel citing 'un-waivable conflict.' Sent by mail only to an address where Smith no longer resided. Certificate of Service was fraudulent.
Order Permitting Withdrawal — August 4, 2025
Order granting Caldwell's withdrawal, signed August 4, 2025. Granted without any inquiry into whether Smith had received notice or had substitute counsel.
Court Reporter Emails — Off-Record Proceedings
Email correspondence with the Catoosa County Clerk and court reporter confirming that critical hearings were conducted without a court reporter and that the August 4 indigency application was never filed with the clerk.
eCertification Request
GSCCCA eCertification request confirming: 'August application for Indigent Defense was not filed with the Clerk's office, judge has it in his office for advisement.'
Feb. 9, 2026 Hearing Transcript (Rough Draft)
Rough draft transcript of the most recent hearing. Documents the court's denial of counsel to a post-surgical, food-stamp-reliant, dyslexic defendant with the finding: 'I find you have the ability to get a job and work where you previously were employed.'
Death Threat Audio Recording — Aug. 30, 2022
Audio recording of Cresswell threatening to kill both Smith and Oliverius: 'I'm gonna kill you both.' Disclosed to the prosecutor, who continued the case anyway.
Confession Audio Recording — March 4, 2023
Audio recording of Cresswell's confession that he was the aggressor, that Smith acted defensively, and that Templin fabricated her account. Never presented to prosecutors.
Cresswell Booking Photo — Feb. 26, 2020 (Harassment + Criminal Impersonation)
Cresswell's booking photograph from his February 26, 2020 arrest on charges of Harassment and Criminal Impersonation. Establishes a documented criminal history predating his relationship with Smith.
Cresswell Booking Photo — Mar. 10, 2022 (Domestic Assault)
Cresswell's booking photograph from his March 10, 2022 arrest for Domestic Assault — three months before the June 17 incident. Corroborates the March 9 strangulation documented in Exhibit A-1.
Cowan Law Firm Facebook Post — Caldwell Employment Confirmed (Sept. 2, 2025)
Facebook post by the Cowan Law Firm confirming that Michael Caldwell was actively employed by the firm while simultaneously serving as Smith's court-appointed defense counsel. A second, undisclosed conflict of interest.
Caldwell Ethics Pattern — 2012 Campaign Signs on Judges' Property (Local 3 News)
2012 Local 3 News article documenting that Michael Caldwell placed campaign signs on judges' property and lied about it when confronted. Establishes a documented pattern of ethical violations predating his appointment as Smith's counsel by 13 years.
Amended Motion to Dismiss — DA Email: 'That's probably where the case will die'
Amended Motion to Dismiss containing the DA's email admission: 'That's probably where the case will die.' The prosecution's own assessment that the case would fail on the merits — continued for four years regardless.
Willful Blindness, Franks Violations & Fabricated Evidence — Comprehensive Legal Brief
24-page comprehensive legal brief covering willful blindness doctrine, Franks v. Delaware violations, fabricated evidence, and Brady violations. The most detailed legal argument document in the case record.
Habeas Corpus Petition — Attachment B Rider (Federal §2241 Grounds)
23-page Habeas Corpus Attachment B Rider presenting federal §2241 petition grounds. Documents constitutional violations sufficient to support federal habeas relief.
For Journalists, Attorneys,
and Advocates
All key documents are organized below by type. If you have 5 minutes, start with the v3 Analysis. If you have 30 seconds, start with the Audio Evidence.
Start with the v3 Analysis for the full picture, then download the two audio recordings — they are self-explanatory and require no legal background to understand.
Battery / Family Violence (O.C.G.A. § 16-5-23.1). Defendant pro se. Case No. 2024STCR1520, Catoosa County State Court. Active as of Feb. 2026 — no trial date set.
Dismissal (Brady / Franks / malicious prosecution) or, alternatively, suppression of the police report, appointment of counsel, and recusal of the presiding judge.
30+ indexed exhibits · certified transcripts · audio recordings · Motion to Recuse (drafted) · Brady demand letter (drafted) · Habeas petition grounds · Strategic Roadmap (13-step). Start with the v3 Analysis and the Police Records section.
The Witness & Court Records section contains the clerk correspondence proving off-record proceedings — the most procedurally unusual element of this case and the easiest to verify independently.
Start here. The v3 analysis is the primary document — 16 pages covering every violation, every piece of suppressed evidence, and a 13-step action plan.
Two recordings that contradict the prosecution's entire narrative. The confession is the single most powerful piece of exculpatory evidence in the case.
The falsified police report and the body camera footage that contradicts it. 30 claims analyzed — 40% directly fabricated or unsupported.
The confession transcript, the only eyewitness's sworn affidavit, and the clerk correspondence proving critical proceedings were conducted off the record.
Recommended Contacts
Organizations and outlets with a documented track record of covering cases like this one.
Demand Accountability
Add your name to demand the immediate dismissal of charges against Deashea Smith, a full investigation into the falsified police report, and accountability for the officers and attorneys involved.
Contact These Organizations
The Contradiction Tracker and Legal Standard Checklist above give you the specific grounds to cite. Use the contacts below to act on them.
Catoosa County State Court
Catoosa County Solicitor-General
State Bar of Georgia — Disciplinary Intake
Georgia Judicial Qualifications Commission
Georgia NAACP Legal Defense Fund
Georgia Attorney General — Consumer Protection
Log every contact, attach responses, and toggle public visibility — private to you.
Your Voice Matters
If you are a journalist, attorney, witness, or advocate — or if you simply have something to say — this is the place. All contact submissions are confidential. Anonymous tips are accepted.