Wednesday, May 31, 2017

5 Arguments used by Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill to Obstruct Access to Altered Grand Jury Records

This is an "either/or situation." Either Chief Deputy F. Aaron Negangard made Dan Brewington the target of an unconstitutional grand jury investigation for criminal defamation; or the Superior Court II of Dearborn County, Indiana omitted constitutionally permissible grounds for Brewington's indictments from the grand jury audio and transcripts to help former Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard obtain criminal convictions against Dan Brewington. Rather than hold people accountable for the illegal conduct, the Office of Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill joined the fight for the Defense against Brewington’s lawsuit seeking access to the full record of his already public grand jury investigation. The following are easily disproved arguments and statements by Defendants and the Attorney General in their efforts to cover-up misconduct involving Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill’s new Chief Deputy, F. Aaron Negangard.    

1.)  "Brewington has, in fact, received the transcripts and audio recordings of the Grand Jury proceedings related to his investigation.” 

-- Page 28 of the Indiana Supreme Court opinion in Brewington v. State states, “Specifically, the prosecutor argued two grounds for Defendant’s convictions, one entirely permissible (true threat) and one plainly impermissible (‘criminal defamation’ without actual malice).” The record of the grand jury demonstrates Negangard provided the grand jury with only the unconstitutional “criminal defamation” ground for Brewington’s indictments. See page 338 of the transcription of the grand jury investigation of Dan Brewington. (Readers are encouraged to review the entire transcript if they have any doubts about Brewington’s claim that Negangard failed to provide any constitutional ground or instruction for making Brewington the target of a grand jury investigation. Readers should also note the investigation lacks any introduction as to the target and nature of the investigation currently before the grand jury, which Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill claims is not required.)

2.)  “The audio recordings of Grand Jury proceedings should never be disclosed, and should not have been disclosed.” 

-- The record of Brewington’s grand jury proceedings became public record during the course of Brewington’s 2011 criminal proceedings. The entities responsible for what the Indiana Attorney General argues to be the erroneous release of the grand jury record are Rush Superior Judge Brian Hill (Special Judge to the Dearborn Superior Court II) and former Dearborn Court Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard; aka the a Defendant currently represented by the Indiana Attorney General, and the current Chief Deputy to the Indiana Attorney General.

3.)  “Indiana Code § 35-34-2-10(b) allows the disclosure of transcript of testimony of a witness before a grand jury but ‘only after a showing of particularized need for the transcript.’ Even if Indiana Code § 35-34-2-10(b) did apply, it clearly states that someone may only receive the transcript ‘after a showing of particularized need for the transcript.’” 

-- Defendants argued Brewington failed to show a “particularized need” for the grand jury record, yet Defendant Judge Hill did not place the same “particularized need” requirement on Negangard when the Chief Deputy Attorney General sought to admit the grand jury record as evidence during Brewington’s bond reduction hearing on August 17, 2011. According to the Indiana Attorney General, Defendant Hill and Chief Deputy Negangard essentially conspired to violate Indiana Code § 35-34-2-10(b) because neither made any effort to inquire about or explain the relevancy of admitting the grand jury record as evidence in a public trial: 
MR. NEGANGARD: State's 4 is the Grand Jury testimony in this case your honor.
COURT: Any objection to that Mr. Barrett?
MR. BARRETT: No your honor.
COURT: State's 4 is offered and admitted.
MR. NEGANGARD: State's 5 is the internet postings and all the Grand Jury Exhibits that were presented during the course of the grand jury. It's on a CD.
COURT: And those postings were the exhibits in the Grand Jury?
COURT: Okay. Any objection to 5?
MR. BARRETT: No objection your honor.
COURT: I'll show State's 5 offered and admitted. 
By arguing that a showing of a "particularized need" is required prior to disclosure of a transcript of witness testimony, the Indian Attorney General acknowledges that Brewington was denied additional charging information and/or evidence during Brewington's criminal proceedings. Defendant Judge Hill knew placing the same "particularized need" requirement on Negangard when submitting the grand jury record as evidence would have forced Negangard to provide Brewington with some understanding of the prosecution's case against Brewington.

4.)  “Brewington received the audio recordings of the grand jury proceedings ‘pertaining to the case of State of Indiana vs Daniel Brewington, Cause No: 15D02-1103-FD00084.’” 

-Attorney General Curtis Hill continues to emphasize that Brewington received all audio despite the claim being patently false. See this example of how one grand jury audio file cuts off before the end of the sentence appearing in what was supposed to be the transcription of the same audio. The 11-second file from the Dearborn Superior Court II appears “as-is”. If Brewington received all audio, then Chief Court Reporter Ruwe made up the last part of the sentence. If Ruwe didn’t make up parts of the transcription, the audio was altered to omit content.

5.)  “Brewington claims there is a conflict of interest ‘given that the release of the Grand Jury Audio will demonstrate how Indiana Chief Deputy Attorney General F. Aaron Negangard abused the grand jury process ....’ Brewington's claim is based on a complete and utter misunderstanding of a conflict of interest. First, even if Brewington's hypothetical conspiracy theory were true, the interest would not be materially adverse, Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 1. 7 - 1.11, but would actually be the same in both cases.” 

-- Page 338 of the grand jury transcript demonstrates Indiana Chief Deputy Attorney General F. Aaron Negangard convened a grand jury investigation of Daniel Brewington because Brewington made “over the top” and “unsubstantiated” statements about officials operating within the Dearborn County Courts. If the grand jury record is complete, as the Office of the Indiana Attorney General argues, then Negangard failed to present a constitutionally sufficient ground for convening a grand jury. If Negangard argued the same “true threat” ground for Brewington’s indictment that was argued during trial, the “true threat” ground was omitted from the record of the grand jury. As the grand jury audio is void of the “true threat” ground for Brewington’s indictment, the grand jury audio had to be modified to exclude such. The only way for the conspiracy to not be true is if the Chief Court Reporter Barbara Ruwe acted alone in modifying the transcription of the grand jury record and then later altered the grand jury audio to match; without the knowledge of the Defendants or (then) Dearborn County Prosecutor Negangard. Even if Chief Deputy Negangard and Defendant Judge Hill were unaware of Ruwe omitting indictment information at the time of Brewington’s trial, the petition filed by the Office of Attorney General Curtis Hill still contends that Brewington enjoyed a fair criminal process. The interests of the Indiana Attorney General are obviously averse to Defendants because it was only after being represented by the Attorney General did the Defendants begin to claim it was their own erroneous rulings that made the grand jury record public. If one objectively reviews the contention of the Indiana Attorney General regarding conflict of interest, a conflict only exists in the absence of a conspiracy where the judges acknowledge and release already releasable public records. Judges are not allowed to arbitrarily disregard their own rulings to restrict access to records on the advice of defense counsel, regardless of whether counsel is the Indiana Attorney General. Ignoring the fact that Brewington’s grand jury proceeding has been part of the public record since 2011 is simply an attempt to suppress the fallout resulting from both the unconstitutional grand jury investigation and criminal trial brought by former Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard; the current Chief Deputy to Indiana Attorney Curtis Hill.

The following are links to some of the recent petitions filed in Brewington’s lawsuit seeking the complete grand jury audio under the Access to Public Records Act (APRA) and Brewington’s action seeking Post-Conviction Relief from the unconstitutional grand jury and criminal proceedings:
Brewington’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum in APRA lawsuit.
Defendants’ Cross Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Office of Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill, where Defendants seek relief from their own rulings by claiming the already public records are not public.
Brewington’s Amended Response to Defendants’ Cross Motion for Summary Judgement that proves the grand jury record is public record because it includes statements and rulings by the Defendants that verify the grand jury record has been public record since 2011.
Brewington’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum in Brewington’s Post-Conviction Relief case. The pleading demonstrates how Negangard forced Brewington to rely on the complete transcript of the grand jury investigation for specific indictment information and then demonstrates how Court Reporter Barbara Ruwe omitted Negangard’s opening arguments from the transcription of the grand jury proceedings; denying Brewington the ability to prepare a defense for trial.
Brewington’s Request for Order to Compel Release of Grand Jury Audio filed in the PCR court. Dearborn County Prosecutor Lynn Deddens represents the State in this case. Deddens is unable to claim the grand jury audio is not subject to release because Deddens lacks Attorney General Hill’s ability to ignore the fact that an Indiana trial court has already ruled that the grand jury proceedings in Brewington’s case are public record.