If you have any doubts as to whether Indiana Chief Deputy Attorney General F. Aaron Negangard conspired with with the Dearborn Superior Court II to maliciously prosecute a criminal defendant, read the following argument included in my recent filing in the Dearborn Superior Court II. The argument by the Office of the Dearborn County Prosecutor rationalizes how court-altered grand jury records didn’t negatively impact the constitutionality of my criminal prosecution:
“Finally, the State wishes to address the claim raised in Brewington's Motion for Summary Judgment in Paragraph 2(A) that ‘[Prosecutor] Negangard switched playbooks on Brewington'. This claim is, to put it bluntly, nonsensical. Even if one is to assume that Brewington’s baseless assertion that the grand jury transcripts were altered or otherwise incomplete, the evidence contained therein is more than enough for even a layperson to discern a ‘true threat.’”
That’s the argument by the regime of current Dearborn County Prosecutor, Lynn Deddens, demonstrating the culture of corruption in the small Indiana county, located a mere thirty minutes west of Cincinnati, Ohio. The prosecution glosses over the fact that just by arguing even if the court altered any/or failed to maintain the grand jury record… acknowledges the existence of both unethical and criminal conduct. There is no constitutionally permissible amount of information that a trial court can arbitrarily omit from the record of a grand jury.
It’s not a matter of if Dearborn County officials engaged in criminal conduct, but rather a matter of how many crimes they committed. Negangard prosecuted me for my public speech that was critical of Dearborn Circuit Judge James D. Humphrey. Negangard’s office instructed me to rely on a complete transcription of the grand jury investigation for an understanding of the general indictments. Negangard, the trial judge, and my public defender waited until less than two weeks before my criminal trial before providing me with a copy of the transcript; a copy I later found to be incomplete. At the time I had no understanding that Indiana law required a record to be kept of all portions of the grand jury investigation, other than deliberations. The Dearborn Superior Court II omitted all portions of the grand jury proceedings occurring prior to witness testimony. After serving 2.5 years of a 5-year prison sentence, I began trying to obtain the grand jury audio through a public record request. After fighting the release of the grand jury audio, the Dearborn Superior Court II released a copy of the grand jury audio containing less information than the transcript. It appears the court altered the transcript then tried to alter the audio to match. Now the Superior Court II, under Judge Sally McLaughlin, claims there is no more audio to release. The kicker is the missing records may be maintained by a victim in the case, Judge James D. Humphrey.
I have two pending legal actions in Dearborn County, Indiana. I’m challenging my convictions through post-conviction relief, while suing the Dearborn Superior Court II for a certified copy of the grand jury audio. Both actions have been pending for over two years. Judge McLaughlin’s court claims it is impossible to provide me with an exact copy of the audio because there were “four to five” other grand jury investigations intertwined on the same recording. If one assumes McLaughlin’s court isn’t lying just to rationalize copying and pasting the audio to match the already altered transcription, Judge McLaughlin still faces two major problems. If several grand jury investigations were recorded on one ongoing audio file, it would require an intentional act for a portion of the record to go missing. Judge McLaughlin’s court either intentionally shut off the recording when Negangard gave the introduction in my case, or Judge McLaughlin’s staff destroyed it. Any way you shake it, Negangard absolutely knew the grand jury records were altered and he took full advantage of the situation. There is no graceful exit strategy for the officials involved.
I included the above in my reply to the State’s Response to my Motion for Summary Disposition in my post-conviction case. I also included the dialogue between Judge Brian Hill and former prosecutor Negangard during the final pre-trial hearing in my criminal case, September 19, 2011. After telling Judge Hill that my public defender refused to speak with me, I didn’t understand the nature of the indictments, and I had yet to receive a copy of the grand jury transcript, Hill denied my request to continue the jury trial scheduled two just weeks later, on October 3, 2011. Hill based his denial on a conversation Hill had with Negangard where both men claimed I was adamant about not continuing the original jury trial set for August 16, 2011, when my public defender had a family emergency. The problem with the story by the two men is that there is no record of me making any such objection. For one, it was impossible for me to go to trial if my public defender was unavailable. Even more troubling is the fact that it was impossible for me to object because Judge Hill vacated the hearing on his own motion. Negangard and Judge Hill rehearsed the make-believe story prior to the hearing; probably to rationalize incarcerating me for over six months without providing any explanation of what actions I was required to defend. Negangard and Judge Hill didn’t change the record, they just altered reality. As for my public defender, he remained silent throughout; calling into question which side he was actually working for.
As for my public record lawsuit seeking the grand jury audio, representing the court in the case is the Office of Indiana Attorney General Curtis T. Hill. Attorney General Hill’s office is fighting the release of the official grand jury audio to protect his own Chief Deputy. Hill’s office is being remarkably vague about the grand jury record beginning at witness testimony. Though claiming not to know the content of the grand jury audio, Curtis Hill’s office is arguing there is no more audio to release. This is especially problematic as the grand jury audio currently released to me contains less information than the transcription.
Stay tuned for more details….