Amended request for All Audio from Grand Jury
May 2, 2016
Dearborn
County Superior Court II
Judge
Sally A. McLaughlin (Formerly Blankenship)
Special
Judge Brian Hill
215
W High St
2nd
Floor
Lawrenceburg,
IN 47025
812.537.8800
Dear Judge Brian Hill/Judge Sally A. McLaughlin
(Blankenship):
On April 20, 2016,
Judge Brian Hill issued the Court’s ORDER ON REQUEST FOR RELEASING AUDIO COPIES
(AS TO GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS OF FEBRUARY 28, 2011, MARCH 1, 1011, AND MARCH 2,
2011). Brewington now requests complete unedited copies of the grand jury audio
pertaining to Cause No. 15D02-1103-FD-084.
If the Court is unwilling to provide Brewington with an unaltered copy of the
official audio from Brewington’s grand jury proceedings due to the Court’s
recent allegation of misconduct by court staff and/or Dearborn County
Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard, then the court should respond appropriately and
vacate Brewington’s convictions. The recent order from the Dearborn Superior
Court II alleges misconduct on the part of the court’s own reporter and then
denies Brewington the opportunity to investigate the extent of the misconduct.
The order also gives Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard the ability
to write the records of grand jury proceedings while removing any way for the
public to prove misconduct. Judge Hill’s order inadvertently offers new
evidence that the Dearborn Superior Court II omitted portions of an official
proceeding in transcribing grand jury audio. Hill’s perseverance in denying the
public and Brewington access the already public grand jury record causes Hill
to overlook the obvious misconduct resting firmly in the Court’s reasoning in
denying Brewington an exact copy of an official record. In orders filed in the
Dearborn Superior Court II, dated April 20, 2016, Judge Hill wrote:
“It is the Court's understanding that the Grand
Jury impaneled for this matter also heard evidence in four to five other Grand
Jury proceedings during this time, often going back and forth between all of
the cases. The audio recordings being released shall contain only the matter
regarding Daniel Brewington and no other Grand Jury proceedings.”
Hill’s
new claim of intertwined grand jury audio is quickly disproven by the
transcripts of the grand jury audio as Negangard skipping back and forth
between cases presented to the grand jury would require Dearborn County
Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard to notify the grand jury when the focus of the
investigation returned to Brewington’s case. Any such activity would have had
to appear in the transcripts of the grand jury. [See Wurster v. State, 715 N.E.2d 341 (Ind. 1999), re: maintaining
record of all communication between prosecutor and jurors.] As the transcripts
are void of any such notice, Hill’s contention that Negangard ran four to five
concurrent grand jury investigations (in addition to Brewington’s) hinges on
the notion that court reporter Barbara Ruwe omitted more of the grand jury
record than originally alleged by Brewington. Despite the new findings, Hill ordered
Ruwe to reconstruct an “official copy” of the grand jury audio by cutting and
pasting segments from the official audio record that Hill now contends to
contain audio from several other grand jury investigations occurring
simultaneously on February 28, 2011, March 1, 2011, and March 2, 2011. The
suggestion that a prosecutor would randomly jump around between as many as six
criminal investigations during a three day grand jury proceedings is either
laughable or horrifically frightening. If Hill maintains that the grand jury
transcript is a complete and accurate transcription of the audio, it would be
impossible for Ruwe to only cut and paste the audio pertaining to Brewington
because Brewington’s grand jury proceedings are void of any cues from the
prosecution to notify when Brewington’s case starts and stops. Hill bases his
decision to limit Brewington’s access to records on private correspondence with
unnamed people that are absent from any official record and without Brewington’s
knowledge or participation. Hill’s new “findings” demonstrate that Negangard failed
to specify which case the prosecution was presenting to the grand jury, or that
Ruwe arbitrarily omitted the information from the record, OR someone is
providing false information to the Court in an effort to save his or her
backside. Any of the contentions beg for the release of the entire unedited
audio containing Brewington’s grand jury proceedings. The new information may
be plausible grounds to vacate Brewington’s convictions. As such, in addition
to requesting an unedited copy of the official record of the audio from the
grand jury investigation of Daniel Brewington, Brewington also requests the
name(s) of the individuals responsible for providing this court with the
information responsible for Hill’s excuse in denying Brewington’s right to access
the official audio from the grand jury proceedings.
Judge Hill has
issued several orders and letters, dating back to January 12, 2012, in response
to multiple requests for the grand jury audio in question. Despite providing a
plethora of excuses as to why the Court should ignore or deny requests for the
audio behind an already public transcript, this is Hill’s first mention of the
intertwining grand jury investigations. One only has to look at the witness
testimony of Dearborn County Sheriff Michael Kreinhop. Page 16 of the grand
jury transcripts show Negangard stating, “We're back on record to so that we're
addressing the handgun issue.” Prior to Negangard’s statement, the record is
void of any indication of a break or an intention to go off the record yet Negangard
suddenly announces that the record is back on. Negangard and Kreinhop went to
great lengths in discussing a handgun legally purchased and owned by Brewington
despite the absence of any claim that Brewington used the gun in any unsafe or
unlawful manner. Without warning, the record shuts off and comes back on with
Negangard and Kreinhop discussing concealed carry permits where Negangard
informs the jurors, “I would point out that permits in Indiana, if you don't
have a felony, they are relatively easy to obtain.” Ruwe, Negangard, Dearborn
County Sheriff Michael Kreinhop and possibly others share a potential stake in
what transpired when the needle suddenly appeared to have slipped off the grand
jury record and now Hill wants to trust Ruwe to accurately recreate the audio
despite Ruwe being responsible for omitting portions of the grand jury
proceedings from the transcripts.
“The legislature's
requirement that a record be kept of grand jury proceedings can only be
designed to serve as an important check on the potential of prosecutorial abuse
of the grand jury process.” Wurster v.
State, 715 N.E.2d at 347. Any contention that Brewington is pursuing an
obscure procedural error in an attempt to seek relief from his convictions is
misplaced. The Office of the Dearborn County Prosecutor never provided
Brewington with any explanation of what actions the State alleged to be in violation
of law. The prosecution instructed Brewington to rely on the record of the
grand jury transcripts knowing that Ruwe omitted portions of the official
record from the transcripts. It is a violation of the rights of the public for
this Court to continue any private investigation into the concerns of others
regarding the release of the grand jury audio outside of a public hearing. It
would be irresponsible, and potentially unconstitutional, for this Court to
place the sole responsibility on the Dearborn County Superior Court II to
recreate a copy of the official audio record in Brewington’s grand jury
proceedings without Brewington’s participation, input, or the ability to call
witnesses. Recreating the audio is virtually impossible in the absence of
Negangard affirmatively stating, “We are back on record in the State’s
investigation of Dan Brewington.” As the grand jury transcripts are void of any
similar transition, Ruwe would have no idea what parts of the audio pertained
to Brewington. If any alleged omissions from the written record were a result
of Ruwe’s inability to understand or follow which investigation the prosecution
was presenting at any given time, a grand jury of laymen would be even more
lost especially with Negangard allegedly bouncing between the presentations of five
to six criminal cases to the same grand jury in the span of three days. Given
that Judge Hill’s current order prohibits Brewington from sharing, any of the
grand jury audio with anyone the secrecy of other alleged grand jury
investigations would not be compromised. The only potential harm in releasing
the audio of other grand jury proceedings is if the audio were to contain
additional examples of grand jury abuse by Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron
Negangard.
Brewington has
remained consistent in requesting information and evidence and this Court has
been consistent in providing new excuses in denying Brewington the evidence.
Judge Hill’s animosity towards Brewington’s requests for information and
constitutional protections date back over 4.5 years. During Brewington’s
sentencing hearing on October 24, 2011, Hill made the following remarks about Brewington’s
numerous verbal and written complaints about not having access to legal counsel
and charging information prior to trial:
“I've never seen anyone better at manipulating
or turning the facts around to make yourself out to be the victim.” -Judge
Brian Hill Tr. 81
During the same
hearing, Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard also attacked Brewington
for alleging misconduct on the part of the prosecution by stating:
“Brewington's convicted at a jury now, and his
response was to say it was my fault. Um, it's the prosecutor's fault, we lied,
we misrepresented the law, um, whatever, again, no acceptance of responsibility
and that's ultimately what the Court is to determine at a sentencing is what it
takes to get someone to accept responsibility for his actions” –Dearborn County Prosecutor Negangard Tr. 67-68
It is worthy to note that Indiana Supreme Court
Chief Justice Loretta H. Rush wrote Negangard’s use of “criminal defamation” to
prosecute Brewington was “plainly impermissible” but upheld Brewington’s convictions
claiming Brewington’s public defender, Bryan Barrett, attempted to take
advantage of Negangard’s unconstitutional prosecution and somehow invited the
errors associated with it. Rush’s opinion is void of any mention of criminal
defamation being the only argument Negangard presented to the grand jury, at
least the only argument appearing in the transcripts. [The trial record
demonstrates Barrett, who was appointed by Hill, failed to take any measures to
determine the nature of the indictments against Brewington. Brewington still
maintains Barrett refused to share evidence, gather evidence, question
witnesses, meet with Brewington, or allow Brewington to play any role in
preparing a defense strategy. The record is replete with examples where
Brewington told Rush County Superior Court Judge Brian Hill that Barrett
refused to meet with Brewington, yet the record is void of ANY examples where
Hill directly addressed Brewington’s concerns that Rush County Chief Public
Defender Bryan Barrett refused to meet with Brewington prior to trial. Meeting
minutes from the Indiana Public Defender Commission demonstrate
that on September 19, 2012, Judge Hill appeared with Bryan Barrett before the
Commission because of Barrett’s non-compliance with caseloads maximums for the
past four quarters. Ironically, it was during Brewington’s final pretrial
hearing on September 19, 2011, exactly one year prior, where Hill refused to
question Barrett about Brewington’s allegations that Barrett refused to meet or
speak with Brewington about his case prior to trial. Two weeks later, Hill
again refused to address Barrett about the matter and marched Brewington to
trial without providing Brewington a fundamental explanation of the charges
against him.] Not only did Judge Hill allow Negangard to misrepresent the law
and prosecute Brewington for criminal defamation, Hill is currently denying
Brewington access to an “official record” that Hill’s recent order acknowledges
to be incomplete. Judge Hill’s current stance on transparency is that
Brewington may have a copy of the audio after the people responsible for
withholding indictment information from Brewington are finished recreating the
audio from the grand jury. As such, Brewington requests an exact copy of the
original and unedited grand jury audio, the name of any individual(s) responsible
for the information behind the Court’s reasoning in denying Brewington’s
request for an exact copy of the official record, and a public hearing giving
Brewington the ability to respond and cross-examine those objecting to the
release of the audio. Please note that Brewington is forwarding this request to
the Indiana Public Access Counselor, local, state and federal officials, in
addition to the FBI and U.S. Department of Justice to help provide shelter from
any further prosecutorial and/or judicial retaliation. Any further excuses not
to release exact copies of the records should be viewed as further attempts to
provide cover for the misconduct by Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron
Negangard, Dearborn County Court Reporter Barbara Ruwe, and other officials
within the Dearborn County Court System. If the Court believes this matter is
better suited for post-conviction hearings or federal proceedings so Brewington
can subpoena individuals and determine who is responsible for altering the
grand jury transcripts, Brewington would respond accordingly. Brewington would
also initiate the process of obtaining the names of individuals serving on the
grand jury in an effort to reconstruct the incomplete record. If Judge Hill or
any officer of the court believes the content of this document includes false
statements or misrepresentations of fact, Brewington welcomes the Court to set
a hearing on matters regarding the obstruction of public records where
Brewington will gladly testify under oath to the truth of the statements. This
hearing will also clear up any confusion as to the accuracy of the transcripts
as Barbara Ruwe will be able to testify why the transcripts are void of any
introduction to the proceedings and who instructed her to omit portions of the
official record.
According to the
statute, you have seven (7) days to respond to this request. If you choose to
deny the request, Brewington asks that the Dearborn County Superior Court II provide
an explanation of the statutory exception authorizing the withholding of all or
part of the public record that does not conflict with Indiana Code §
5-14-3-9(e). Given that Brewington is likely to notify Dearborn County of an
intent to initiate civil action due to the Court’s recent findings that Ruwe
failed to transcribe all the audio pertaining to Brewington’s grand jury
proceeding, Ruwe nor any member of the Dearborn County Superior Court II should
play any role in “recreating” the official audio record. As Special Judge Brian
Hill based the Court’s latest restriction on Brewington’s access to public
records on misconduct by Ruwe and/or Negangard, Brewington requests that Judge
Hill or Judge McLaughlin seek the appointment of a new unbiased judge.
Brewington should not be punished for the ineptitude of Ruwe and Negangard.
A copy of this
request can be found on www.danbrewington.blogspot.com
for your convenience. Thank you for your assistance on this matter.
Respectfully,
Daniel P. Brewington, Requester
2529 Sheridan Drive
Norwood, Ohio 45212
513.383.3136
cc: Senator
Mike Delph
District 29
200 W. Washington St.
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Senator Brent Steele Judiciary Chair
District 44
200 W. Washington Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Hon. Jonathan N. Cleary, Judge
Dearborn Superior Court I
215 W. High Street
Lawrenceburg, IN 47025
Hon. Sally A. McLaughlin, Judge
Dearborn Superior Court II
215 W. High Street
Lawrenceburg, IN 47025
Barbara Ruwe Court Reporter
Dearborn Superior Court II
215 W. High Street
Lawrenceburg, IN 47025
Hon Brian Hill, Judge
Rush Superior Court
101 East Second Street, 3rd Floor
Rushville, Indiana 46173
F. Aaron Negangard
Dearborn County Prosecutor
215 W High St
Lawrenceburg, IN 47025
Dearborn County Sheriff
Michael Kreinhop
DCLEC
301 West High Street
Lawrenceburg, IN 47025
Federal Bureau of Investigation Office
8825 Nelson B Klein Pkwy
Indianapolis, IN 46250
United States Attorney’s Office
10 W. Market St, Suite 2100
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Adrienne Meiring, Counsel
Indiana Supreme Court
30 South Meridian Street, Suite 500
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
Indiana Attorney General's Office
Indiana Government Center South
302 W. Washington St., 5th Floor
Indianapolis, IN 46204
No comments:
Post a Comment