Undisclosed: Civil suit, criminal probe collide in Davis’s $15M verdict
A SERIES
Part 5: Damage Control – The Fight Moves to Appeal
Editor’s Note: This is Part 5 in a multi-part series examining the legal battle between the Alachua County Sheriff’s Office (ACSO) and ACSO Sgt. Kevin Davis in a civil trial, the influence of a dual track criminal investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) that allowed itself to be drawn into political and legal crossfire and the attorney who was the central figure in in both the civil and criminal proceedings.
GAINESVILLE – Following a major post-trial hearing on July 15, the legal battle between Sgt. Kevin Davis and the Alachua County Sheriff’s Office (ACSO) is now poised to enter a new phase: appeal. While Circuit Judge Gloria Walker denied the Sheriff’s motion for new trial and allowed the $15 million verdict to stand, attorneys for ACSO made it clear that the issues at stake are far from resolved.
Several local media outlets previously and inaccurately reported that during a June 10 hearing the Court denied ACSO’s motions to overturn the jury verdict, request a new trial, and reduce the damages award. In reality, the Court held the June 10 hearing solely to decide whether ACSO could amend its post-trial motions to include newly discovered facts – namely, that the separate FDLE criminal investigation introduced in the civil case resulted in no criminal charges and that plaintiff Davis’s attorney, Bobi Frank, was deeply involved in that investigation, including representing multiple witnesses in FDLE’s criminal probe and failed to disclose her involvement during discovery in the civil trial.
Contrasting Cases: When $15 Million Means Something Else
The contrast between Davis’s case and a recent Alachua County jury verdict awarding $17 million to a mother and child severely burned in a 2022 apartment fire could not be more striking. In that case, reported by WCJB on April 11, 2025, the plaintiffs suffered devastating physical injuries – burns covering over 27% of the mother’s body and 8% of her daughter’s. Both required hospitalization and long-term medical treatment. The jury found that the housing provider’s failure to inspect the apartment in violation of federal safety regulations directly led to the explosion.
That jury’s award was based on undeniable physical trauma, ongoing disfigurement, and medical need. By contrast, Davis’s claim was based on emotional distress stemming from a workplace dispute in which he remained on the payroll and was placed on paid administrative leave. He admitted to violating department policies, including failing to wear a body-worn camera and making derogatory social media posts about a superior officer. No medical records, psychological diagnoses, or expert testimony were presented to support his emotional damages.
The evidence showed that Davis remained a full-time employee during the entire period of his so-called “pseudo house arrest.” He continued to receive his salary and benefits and was never stripped of his classification. His emotional distress claim stemmed not from physical injury or public humiliation, but from being temporarily directed to stay home during work hours unless given prior approval – a standard protocol in internal affairs investigations. To some observers, Davis’s complaints bordered on the theatrical, especially when contrasted with the real physical suffering endured by other plaintiffs who received similar monetary verdicts.
A Narrow Ruling, a Broader Dispute
At the July 15 hearing, ACSO’s lead counsel Wes Gay challenged the foundation of the verdict, arguing that it was unsupported by the record and legally flawed. He highlighted what he described as a glaring absence of any custom or policy under federal civil rights law (Monell doctrine), arguing that Davis failed to show how official ACSO policy caused his alleged injury. Judge Walker, however, ruled that ACSO had waived those arguments by not raising them before the verdict form was finalized.
The court also declined to disturb the $15 million in non-economic damages, despite ACSO’s argument that the emotional distress award was excessive and unsubstantiated by medical records or expert testimony. Judge Walker found that the jury had sufficient evidence to support its decision and that the verdict did not shock the judicial conscience.
The jury’s $15 million award was 130 times the original back pay award of $115,724. However, because Judge Walker reduced back pay to $16,457 at the July 15 post-trial hearing, the $15 million award is more than 911 times larger than the back pay award. This is likely to bolster ACSO’s argument on appeal that the $15 million shocks the conscience.
One Win for the Sheriff
The only relief granted to the defense came in the form of a partial reduction of the jury’s award. The court accepted ACSO’s argument that the jury’s back pay award had improperly included front pay, a remedy reserved to the court. Based on the Plaintiff’s own expert testimony, Judge Walker reduced Davis’s back pay award from $115,724 to $16,457.
While the July 15 post-trial hearing was largely a victory for the Plaintiff, the ruling sets up a clean path for appellate review. ACSO now faces the choice of whether to appeal the court’s denial of a directed verdict, a new trial, and the damages award.
The Heart of the Matter
The July 15 hearing revealed the depth of ACSO’s legal strategy. Defense counsel argued that Davis’s retaliation claim failed as a matter of law, citing long gaps in time between alleged complaints and subsequent employment decisions. They argued that many of the challenged actions – including a failed transfer, reprimands, and suspension – were either standard law enforcement procedures or based on Davis’s own admitted conduct.
Davis was never demoted, never docked a day of pay, and never placed in a position beneath his classification. And yet, the jury awarded him $15 million – a sum 911 times greater than the actual back pay Judge Walker allowed. That staggering disparity may become central to ACSO’s appeal.
ACSO argued that evidence related to an FDLE criminal investigation – instigated by Davis’s attorney Bobi Frank on the same day Davis’s civil lawsuit was filed – was allowed at trial without the jury ever being informed that the criminal case had been closed without charges. Gay contended this planted a false image of criminality around ACSO leadership that unfairly influenced the jury.
Frank’s involvement continued to raise red flags. As outlined in earlier installments, she represented multiple FDLE witnesses, conducted interviews at her own law office, and failed to disclose the immunity deals granted by FDLE to those witnesses – facts never presented to the civil trial jury.
Davis’s legal team insisted in pre-trial motions that the FDLE investigation was relevant and could be presented to the jury. Despite ACSO’s repeated objections, Judge Walker permitted references to the FDLE investigation at trial. However, new evidence – including the revelation that Frank had insider knowledge of the FDLE inquiry and likely knew its criminal allegations lacked merit – lends credibility to ACSO’s long-standing concern: that Davis’s team strategically used references to the criminal investigation to inflame the civil trial jury and tip the scales in their favor.
A Look Back at This Series
Throughout this five-part series, Alachua County Today has uncovered critical issues that may now inform the appellate court’s review:
In Part 1, we revealed that Davis’s attorney Bobi Frank initiated the FDLE criminal investigation on the same day Davis’s civil suit was filed – an extraordinary dual track that was never explained to the jury.
In Part 2, we reported that key witness for Davis, former ACSO Captain Brandon Kutner, received immunity from FDLE in the criminal investigation before admitting to secretly monitoring a conversation between Frank and another client. The jury was never told about his immunity.
In Part 3, we examined how Frank shaped media narratives, directed FDLE interviews at her own law office, and crafted a public image of dysfunction at ACSO – all while representing most of the witnesses granted immunity by FDLE.
In Part 4, we analyzed FDLE’s final report and State Attorney Durrett’s findings. Despite months of speculation, FDLE substantiated only two claims – both ultimately rejected for prosecution. Dozens of other allegations either lacked evidence or were unrelated to Davis’s case.
# # #
Email editor@alachuatoday.com
