January 5, 2018
Jane
Henegar
Executive
Director
ACLU
of Indiana
1031
East Washington Street
Indianapolis,
IN 46202-3952
Dear Executive Director Henegar,
I
am contacting the Indiana ACLU to make you aware of the legal situation
regarding grand jury investigations in Dearborn County, Indiana. In 2011, I was
indicted and convicted on a variety of crimes stemming from my public criticism
of officials within the Dearborn County Court System. I was marched to trial
despite, on multiple occasions, informing the trial judge that my public
defendant refused to ever meet with me to discuss my case. A week before my
trial, my public defender mailed a copy of the 340-page grand jury transcript
to me while I was incarcerated in the Dearborn County Law Enforcement Center on
a $500,000 surety/$100,000 cash bond. I was given only a week to read the
340-page transcript, which served as the only means by which I was to determine
what actions I was required to defend. As the indictments of my case covered
several years and mentioned no specific actions, and since my public defender
refused to meet with me, I appeared at my criminal trial with no understanding
of my case. On several occasions, I explained to Special Judge Brian Hill, Rush
Superior Court, that my public defender, Rush County Chief Public Defender
Bryan Barrett, refused to speak to me outside of the courtroom. I explained I
had no idea what actions I was required to defend. I filed three pro-se motions
addressing these issues on the morning of my trial. Judge Hill refused to even
ask Barrett if my accusations were true. Judge Hill only offered me the opportunity
to represent myself. As I had no understanding of my case, I obviously
declined. After serving a 2.5-year sentence, I discovered I was not provided a
copy of the entire transcript from the grand jury proceeding because the
transcript began at witness testimony. As the prosecution offered the
transcription into evidence during a hearing in my criminal proceedings, in
2012 my family requested a copy of the grand jury audio per the Access to
Public Records Act (“APRA”), but was denied. I made the same request in 2016
but again was denied. After filing a complaint with the Indiana Public Access
Counselor, the PAC issued an advisory opinion dated April 14, 2016 stating the
audio was a releasable record. It was then that the Dearborn Superior Court II began
claiming that other grand jury proceedings were intertwined with mine and
Special Judge Brian Hill directed the court reporter to prepare a copy of audio
that pertained only to my investigation. The Court changed the file format and
names of audio files and copied and pasted the grand jury audio; presumably to
match the transcript that was prepared five years prior. Most concerning is the
fact the transcripts contain more information than the audio from which it was
originally transcribed.
I
am currently taking two legal paths in trying to clear my name. The
criminal/PCR courts have no interest in protecting my rights. I am currently
appealing the blanket denial of my verified petition for post-conviction
relief. Special
Judge W. Gregory Coy denied all twenty grounds I raised for post-conviction
relief without a hearing by simply stating: “There is no factual basis to
support any of Brewington’s claims and/or allegations against the judges and
attorneys involved in his case.” [See attached order] Of course my petition
explained I had no assistance of counsel outside of the courtroom and I had no
understanding of the indictments when the trial started. Just like Judge Hill,
Judge Coy ignored my claims and granted summary disposition in favor of the
State, on the Court’s own motion. Judge Coy granted summary disposition in
favor of the State despite the State arguing a hearing was necessary because
issues of material fact made summary disposition/judgment unavailable.
I
am pursuing a second avenue via an APRA lawsuit against the Dearborn Superior
Court II. I’ve just filed a motion to set a hearing on the matter. [See
attached petition] To this date, the Defendants claim there is no record of
the grand jury proceedings occurring prior to witness testimony. Complicating
matters is the prosecutor who conducted the grand jury investigation was F.
Aaron Negangard, current Chief Deputy to Attorney General Curtis Hill. During
my criminal trial, the prosecution instructed me to rely on the “complete”
transcription of the grand jury investigation to determine what actions the
State alleged to be criminal. Unbeknownst to me at the time, Barbara Ruwe,
court reporter for the Dearborn Superior II, omitted Negangard’s opening
statements and instructions to the grand jury occurring prior to witness
testimony. Now the Defendants claim that there is no record of my grand jury
investigation prior to witness testimony. The Dearborn Superior Court II claims
a record of the investigation prior to witness testimony does not exist but the
court is fighting the release of the original audio files claiming that other
grand jury proceedings are intertwined with my proceeding. For this to be true,
the court reporter would have had to let the recording device run throughout
all the proceedings without stopping. This contention might be plausible if
there were verbal cues in the record such as “we are back on the record of
Brewington.” In the absence of such cues, it would be impossible to accurately
transcribe any one investigation that was intertwined with others. Of course,
the Dearborn Superior Court II has made no mention of whether the grand jury
record was never recorded, deleted, or whether Negangard simply began
presenting evidence and witnesses without any explanation of the alleged
crime(s). It seems apparent that Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill has no
intention of protecting the public from this type of activity because the
Indiana Attorney General is serving as opposing counsel in both the appeal of
my post-conviction petition and my APRA lawsuit. Despite clinging to the claim
that I face a fair criminal trial and appellate process, no one wants to
address how the missing grand jury records prohibit me from knowing exactly why
Negangard made me a target of a grand jury investigation and being able to
defend which of my actions Negangard argued were unlawful.
At
every turn, Indiana judges and lawyers have done everything to steer clear of
this situation because it represents what is known in some circles as the
“Indiana way” of doing things. I’m not overly optimistic that the Indiana
Chapter of the ACLU has the “resources” (aka: legal and political capital) to
address a case as toxic as this. Any assistance on these issues would be
greatly appreciated but not expected.
Very truly yours,
Daniel P.
Brewington
Enclosed:
Copy
of Brewington
Motion to Set Hearing
Copy of PCR
Court’s Order granting sua sponte summary disposition in favor of State
No comments:
Post a Comment