12/23/2025
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Defense Seeks Franks Hearing After Discovery of Altered Florida Highway Patrol Homicide Report
Pensacola, Florida — Defense counsel for former Escambia County Deputy Sheriff Gregory Nesmith has filed an Addendum to a Motion for a Franks Hearing, asking the Court to examine whether the Florida Highway Patrol materially altered a Traffic Homicide Investigation after the fact and then relied on those altered findings to secure an arrest warrant for vehicular homicide.
The Addendum was filed after the defense obtained a second, materially different version of the official FHP Traffic Homicide Investigation report in the same case. According to the filing, the later report contains substantial changes to core investigative findings that go directly to probable cause, including vehicle damage measurements, reconstruction conclusions, speed analysis, visibility and lighting conditions, pedestrian conduct, and statutory violations.
A Franks hearing is required when there is a substantial preliminary showing that a warrant affidavit was based on false statements or material omissions made knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth. If such misconduct is established, the Constitution requires suppression of the warrant and any charges flowing from it.
“This case now involves two official homicide reports issued by the same law enforcement agency, containing materially different conclusions about the same incident,” defense counsel stated. “These are not typographical corrections or clarifications. The changes go to the heart of speed, visibility, avoidability, and causation, and they appear to have been made months after the original investigation was complete.”
Among the issues raised in the Addendum are:
1) Alteration of documented vehicle damage measurements used to support reconstruction analysis
2) Recharacterization of Event Data Recorder data in a manner that increases inculpatory inferences
3) Changes to lighting and visibility findings without new testing or scene reconstruction
4) Removal or minimization of pedestrian statutory violations present in the original report
5) Introduction of new failure-to-yield theories not contained in the initial investigation
The defense emphasizes that the Addendum does not allege misconduct by the State Attorney’s Office. Instead, it focuses exclusively on the conduct of the investigating agency and whether official findings were reshaped to support a felony charging narrative.
“The integrity of the criminal justice system depends on the reliability of sworn investigative reports,” counsel stated. “When official findings are revised after the fact in ways that strengthen criminal liability, the Constitution requires judicial scrutiny. That is the purpose of a Franks hearing.”
If granted, the Franks hearing would require sworn testimony regarding the creation of both reports, the timing and basis for the changes, and whether material facts were omitted or altered in the arrest warrant affidavit presented to the Court.
The Addendum is pending before the Court. The case remains in pretrial posture.
