Indiana Attorney General Recognizes Conspiracy to Alter Grand Jury Records

       Recent court filings demonstrate that the Office of the Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill acknowledges the Superior Court II of Dearborn County, Indiana conspired to alter grand jury records to assist the prosecution convict me. The record tampering takes on much more sinister implications, when considering the that the prosecution instructed me to rely on the grand jury record to prepare my defense. The court filings also show the Indiana Attorney General signed and delivered the legal documents where Rush Superior Court Judge Brian Hill, under penalties of perjury, falsely accused me of harassing Judge Hill. The evidence of the misconduct is currently before the Dearborn Superior Court I and the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Chief Deputy F. Aaron Negangard (left)
w/Indiana Attorney General Curtis T. Hill

My blog has provided the accounts of my criminal prosecution stemming from public criticisms of Indiana court officials. I was detained on a $600,000 bond, given a public defender that refused to meet with or speak to me, and then forced to trial without an understanding of what actions I was required to defend. The trial resulted in convictions requiring me to serve a 2.5-year prison sentence. The former prosecutor of Dearborn County, Indiana argued my writings violated non-existent criminal defamation laws, yet no lawyer nor any Indiana court made any attempt to hold the prosecutor accountable for the unconstitutional grounds he argued for my convictions. The former prosecutor of Dearborn County responsible for my grand jury investigation and criminal prosecution is the current Chief Deputy Attorney General for the State of Indiana, F. Aaron Negangard.

I am representing myself in two legal actions currently pending before the Indiana courts. I filed a petition for post-conviction relief seeking the dismissal of my convictions for several reasons; the most notable being that the trial court staff of the Dearborn Superior Court II altered grand jury records to give the prosecution an unconstitutional advantage. Without the entire grand jury record, I had no way of knowing what actions I was required to defend. For those not familiar with law or Indiana post-conviction procedures, the post-conviction process affords people another means to contest their convictions besides the normal criminal appeal process. The special judge in my post-conviction case, Switzerland County Circuit Judge W. Gregory Coy, summarily dismissed my post-conviction action without a hearing and granted summary judgment/disposition to the State under Rule 1(4)(g) of the Indiana Rules of Post-Conviction Relief. I appealed the decision and the case has been briefed by both parties and is now pending review by the Indiana Court of Appeals. No order has been released on my motion requesting oral arguments before the Court of Appeals.

My other case currently before the Indiana courts is my lawsuit seeking public records, filed in the Dearborn Superior Court I. After determining the Dearborn Superior Court II omitted portions of the grand jury proceedings from the transcription of my grand jury investigation, I requested a copy of the grand jury audio to see if the audio record of the grand jury investigation in my case matched the transcription. Not only did the records not match, the audio contained less information than the transcription. I filed a lawsuit via the Access to Public Records Act (APRA) to obtain the official audio. As both cases have progressed, the Office of the Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill has stumbled into an unthinkable situation; having to argue against the interests of the Attorney General’s own clients in both of my pending legal actions.

The “clients” of the Office of the Indiana Attorney General Curtis T. Hill, consist of the opposing parties in both of my pending legal actions. In my APRA lawsuit, the AG represents Rush County Superior Court Judge Brian Hill (Judge Hill served as special judge in my criminal trial and held jurisdiction over the release of grand jury records), and the Dearborn Superior Court II under Judge Sally McLaughlin. In the appeal of the summary dismissal of my post-conviction action, the client of the Attorney General is the State of Indiana.

Deputy Stephen Creason

In the appeal of my post-conviction case, Deputy Attorney General Stephen Creason argues the following in the State’s Brief of the Appellee:

“The post-conviction court was also authorized to dispose of the petition under Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(g). Brewington’s motion for summary disposition was intentionally limited to his allegations related to the grand jury”

The State’s brief specifically addresses my claim that the trial court conspired to alter grand jury records:

“trial court staff allegedly manipulated the record of the grand jury proceeding as part of a conspiracy against [Brewington]”

A key requirement to summary judgment/disposition under Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(g) is that there can be no genuine issue of material fact. A material fact is a fact relevant to the legal proceeding. Rule 1(4)(g) also provides that “if an issue of material fact is raised, then the court shall hold an evidentiary hearing as soon as reasonably possible.” An issue of material fact occurs when there are two conflicting claims of fact relative to the legal proceeding. For a better understanding of how an issue of material fact arises, consider my claim that the trial court engaged in a conspiracy to alter grand jury records. If Deputy Creason would have argued that my claim was untrue, it would create an issue of material fact because my claim would conflict with Creason’s assessment of fact. To resolve the conflict, an evidentiary hearing would have been necessary. If Deputy Creason would have argued there was no conspiracy to alter grand jury records, the issue of material fact would immediately prove that the order granting summary judgment/disposition to the State was erroneous. Creason’s use of “allegedly” in addressing my conspiracy claim does not relieve the Office of the Indiana Attorney General from the culpability associated with knowing there was a criminal conspiracy to alter grand jury records. Even a claim of uncertainty as to whether the grand jury tampering occurred, creates an issue of material fact. In arguing that Judge Coy properly awarded summary judgment/disposition to the State, Deputy Creason was required to accept my material facts as being true, so Creason argued legal technicalities and procedural bars precluded me from seeking relief from a conspiracy by the trial court to alter grand jury records. Creason’s apparent attempt to capitalize on an erroneous ruling by the post-conviction court inadvertently sabotaged the case of the Attorney General’s client in my public records lawsuit. Creason’s appellate argument, by default, affirms that the Defendant Dearborn Superior Court II, under Judge Sally McLaughlin, engaged in a criminal conspiracy to alter grand jury records with the intent to sabotage my criminal trial.

Yesterday (06/05/18) I was notified that the judge presiding over my APRA lawsuit granted my Emergency Motion to Continue Hearing and Request for Order Compelling Admissions. I requested the emergency continuance for two reasons, the first of which being Judge Brian Hill’s refusal to cooperate with simple admission requests. The second and more disturbing reason for requesting the emergency continuance was that I did not feel safe attending the hearing in the Dearborn County Courthouse following Judge Hill’s false harassment allegation. In responding to my pretrial requests for admissions, Judge Hill argued I tried to harass Hill as an opposing party in a lawsuit:       

Judge Brian Hill 

Rush Superior Court 

"[Judge Brian Hill] objects to the term 'excuses' as the term is derogatory and its use is intended to harass [Judge Brian Hill]. [Judge Brian Hill] further object to the term 'excuses' as it fails to adequately and specifically describe the subject matter sought and is vague and ambiguous and, therefore, requires [Judge Brian Hill] to engage in conjecture as to their meaning. As such, it is difficult to discern what Brewington is asking [Judge Brian Hill] to admit or deny."

The following is the entire statement from which Judge Hill bases his harassment allegation:

“Admit that in an opinion dated April 14, 2016, the Indiana Public Access Counselor deemed Hill's excuses for withholding the grand jury audio to be invalid.”

Deputy Attorney General Marley Hancock currently serves as legal counsel for the defendants in my public record lawsuit. Deputy Hancock and Judge Hill understand that harassing an opposing civil litigant is a crime. No reasonable legal or non-legal person would perceive the singular use of the word “excuses” as an attempt to harass; however, even a baseless harassment claim from a judge could be used to rationalize some form of criminal investigation. As the Indiana Attorney General does not deny that a Dearborn County court altered grand jury records to obstruct my access to indictment information and evidence in my criminal trial, Judge Hill’s claim can only be viewed as a threat intended to place me in grave danger of being subjected to another court-sponsored malicious prosecution in Dearborn County.

The Office of the Indiana Attorney General and other Indiana Court officials have backed themselves into a metaphorical checkmate. Attorney General Curtis Hill’s Office cannot argue both sides of this equation. If Deputy Attorney General Marley Hancock argues the Dearborn Superior Court II did not alter grand jury records, it creates an issue of material fact that decimates the appellate arguments made on behalf of the State by Deputy Attorney General Stephen Creason. Creason’s entire argument before the Indiana Court of Appeals requires Deputy Hancock’s clients to have engaged in a conspiracy to sabotage a criminal trial, which is a violation of federal law, because no issue of fact may exist. As Deputy Hancock signed the responses to Brewington’s admission requests on behalf of Judge Hill, the harassment claim against Brewington may have originated from the Office of Curtis Hill, and not Judge Brian Hill. Such a finding would solidify the true interest of the Attorney General in fighting Brewington’s legal actions; protecting Curtis Hill’s second-in-command. The biggest dilemma facing the Office of Indiana Attorney General Curtis T. Hill is the fact that the prosecutor whom the Dearborn Superior Court conspired to assist is the current Indiana Chief Deputy Attorney General, F. Aaron Negangard.

For further information/evidence regarding the above claims, please feel free to review my Emergency Motion to Continue Hearing and Request for Order Compelling Admissions. The motion filed June 4, 2018 also contains the following documents attached as exhibits A-E:

EXHIBIT A Brewington’s Request for Admissions to Judge Hill

EXHIBIT B Judge Hill’s response to Brewington’s admissions

EXHIBIT C The State of Indiana’s Brief of Appellee, filed by Deputy Creason

EXHIBIT D Brewington’s Reply Brief in response to Creason’s Brief of Appellee

EXHIBIT E Brewington’s Motion for Oral Arguments, filed 5/25/2018 with the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Indiana Chief Deputy AG Faces Scrutiny for Violating Federal Law

The State of Indiana retaliated against me for criticizing the Indiana Court System. Here’s the common-sense analysis: If my conduct had any resemblance of being criminal, why did former Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard instruct the trial jury to return guilty verdicts claiming I violated the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys?

“As to Count II, Intimidation of a Judge, that is more serious because it involves a Judge but because it involves a Judge, we do need to look at the first amendment issues because you are allowed to criticize judges. Right? I mean, I'm not. Defense counsel's not because we are attorneys. But remember he says he's acting like an attorney so we should treat it as he's acting like an attorney. Well if he's acting like an attorney, then he needs to accountable like an attorney. He could hire his own attorney but he didn't. So you know and he has to suffer the consequences." -Closing arguments by F. Aaron Negangard Trial transcripts page 515 (Appellant Appendix 22)

There is no such criminal law. Negangard made it up. The false ground for prosecution would normally warrant a mistrial or be grounds for vacating the convictions on appeal. Indiana officials continue to make excuses in rationalizing why my convictions are constitutional, while ignoring the conduct of Chief Deputy Negangard. My consequences for criticizing judges while “acting like an attorney” were nothing like those described in the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct. My consequences include serving a 2.5-year prison sentence and living with the label of being a convicted felon. Negangard’s actions are a federal crime. A prosecutor cannot convene a grand jury and prosecute someone for a non-existent crime to punish someone for protected speech. Doing so is a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law.

F. Aaron Negangard is now Chief Deputy to Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill. Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill has personally signed on to represent the State of Indiana in my appeal of Negangard’s unconstitutional prosecution. The above statement and many other ridiculous arguments by Chief Deputy Negangard appear in my Appellant Brief and attached appendices filed with the Indiana Court of Appeals. These filings prove both Attorney General Hill and the Indiana courts are fully aware of Negangard’s criminal conduct. Even an argument against Negangard’s conduct being criminal requires a contention that Negangard simply made up the argument to confuse the jury to obtain convictions, which is both unconstitutional and an act of malicious prosecutor misconduct. The Indiana courts continue to ignore Negangard’s conduct and now Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill has signed on to help detract attention from a federal crime committed by his own chief deputy. Negangard even admitted my prosecution was not about the victims, as Negangard stated the prosecution was to prevent me from “perverting” the Indiana judicial system.

Stay tuned for updates. The office of Attorney General Curtis Hill is also representing the Dearborn Superior Court II in my lawsuit seeking grand jury audio. I filed the lawsuit after discovering portions of the grand jury transcript and grand jury audio do not match; the same transcript that formed the basis of Negangard’s prosecution against me. If the Indiana Court System and Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill continue to cover-up potential federal crimes committed by Chief Deputy Attorney General F. Aaron Negangard, I’m going to make sure that the public knows about it.  

The Indiana Courts Continue to Stall on Case Involving Tampered Grand Jury Records

The following is an except from my latest filing in my post-conviction relief case. On March 31, 2017, I filed a motion seeking summary disposition where I requested the court to vacate my convictions. The Dearborn Superior Court II has failed to issue a ruling on the matter. This seems par for the course especially as it was the Dearborn Superior Court II that altered grand jury records to assist former Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard prosecute criminal defamation. Negangard currently serves as Chief Deputy for Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill. Attorney General Hill's office is currently representing the Dearborn Superior Court II in my lawsuit seeking the unaltered audio from my grand jury investigation. (The audio released by the Dearborn Superior Court II contains less information than the transcription of the same audio.) Below is the conclusion appearing at the end of my Request for Ruling on Summary Disposition, dated September 23, 2017:

This is not a John Grisham novel. This criminal case has done immeasurable harm to Brewington’s life. From the beginning of Brewington’s criminal proceedings, the State demonstrated how the entire action was simply a means to silence and punish Brewington for criticizing officials operating within the Dearborn County Court System. This is best demonstrated by the arguments of Chief Deputy Prosecutor Joeseph Kisor during Brewington’s arraignment on March 11, 2011:

“[W]e is asking that the Court consider making conditions of [Brewington’s] bond that he not access the internet, uh, or if the Court would believe that to be too broad, which I'm not sure the State would not concede that but if that were to be considered too broad, we would ask the Court to make a condition of bond that Mr. Brewington not continue to blog about the substance, uh, at least his version of the substance of the case that is here before this Court.” Tr. 19

Kisor later clarified the State’s concerns regarding Brewington blogging during the criminal proceedings:

“So I think it's clear um, that he intends to try this case on his blog and I think that not only could be detrimental to the State. It might even be detrimental to him. But in any event, it's not appropriate”

Deputy Kisor clearly explained that the Office of the Dearborn County Prosecutor had an interest in censoring Brewington. Kisor tried to claim the censorship was somehow a means to protect Brewington’s right to a fair trial, despite the prosecution remaining silent at the beginning of trial when Brewington informed Judge Hill that Brewington had not received any assistance in preparing for trial. Kisor and the Office of the Dearborn County Prosecutor were never concerned about the alleged victims. Kisor was only concerned about Brewington sharing Brewington’s own “version of the substance of the case.” Brewington’s trial was never about the alleged victims in the case and Negangard explicitly stated such during closing arguments:

“That's what this case is about. It isn't about Judge Humphrey. It isn't about Dr. Connor. It is about our system of justice that was challenged by Dan Brewington and I submit to you that it is your duty, not to let him pervert it, not to let him take it away and it happens if he's not held accountable. He's held accountable by a verdict of guilty. That's how he's held accountable and that's what we're asking you to do. You cannot allow our system to be perverted that way. The rule of law will fail and ultimately our republic. I submit to you that that is not a result that we want to have happen. That is why we are here today.” Tr. 504-505

Brewington’s criminal proceedings were never about threats to reputation or safety, because Negangard explicitly said so. Negangard sought and obtained indictments against Brewington under the pretense of intimidation because Negangard argued convictions for intimidation were necessary to prevent Brewington from perverting our system of justice and to hold Brewington accountable like an attorney. These are simply the facts of this case. The State cannot merely retract Negangard’s statements. In an act of inane arrogance, Negangard openly admitted that the State of Indiana sought convictions against Brewington to prevent the fall of the rule of law and ultimately the United States of America. Brewington could not invite this error. Brewington could not defend himself against such. Negangard’s statement serves as a confession that Brewington’s criminal proceedings were beyond unconstitutional, while Judge Hill and Bryan Barrett allowed Negangard to seek convictions against Brewington for perverting the judicial system. Brewington was held on a $500,000 surety/$100,000 cash bond. Brewington was denied access to legal counsel. Brewington was denied the right to an impartial judge. Brewington was denied access to evidence and indictment information. The Dearborn Superior Court II excluded portions of the grand jury proceedings occurring prior to witness testimony. There is no contesting the fact that Negangard affirmatively stated that Negangard sought indictments and criminal convictions against Brewington, under the pretense of intimidation laws, for the “greater good” of protecting the integrity of the judicial system. These are the facts of the case as explained by former Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard that appear on pages 504-505 of the official transcripts in Brewington’s criminal trial. Brewington is not twisting facts. These are facts of the case as alleged by Negangard, the man who currently serves as Chief Deputy to Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill.

If this Court should deem this action to be more appropriate for a federal jurisdiction due to reluctance in dealing with abuses by high ranking Indiana officials, Brewington requests the Court to issue an order consistent with such a concern.  

The following is a link to Brewington's Request for Summary Disposition 

Judge McLaughlin Recuses and Requests Transfer of Public Records Lawsuit

Update on Brewington lawsuit seeking Grand Jury Audio (Filed February 21, 2017) - On March 1, 2017, Judge Sally McLaughlin (formerly Blankenship) filed the Court’s ORDER OF RECUSAL AND TRANSFER, recusing herself from the case involving my lawsuit seeking the audio from my grand jury investigation. McLaughlin’s order also “requests the Clerk to transfer this cause of action to Dearborn Superior Court 1 since Dearborn Superior Court 2, the judge of Dearborn Superior Court 2, and the Dearborn Superior Court 2 court reporter are named as defendants in said matter.” The case was originally assigned to McLaughlin’s court by the Dearborn County Clerk.

There is no word on whether Rush County Superior Court Judge Brian Hill will continue to serve as Special Judge in my Petition for Post-Conviction Relief (“PCR”), filed February 22, 2017 as Hill is also name as a defendant in the public records case. There is also no word on whether the PCR will remain in the Dearborn Superior Court 2 as the lawsuit also names court report Barbara Ruwe as a defendant because it was Ruwe who altered grand jury transcripts and audio. 

Brewington takes new Legal Action in light of Altered Grand Jury Records

The State of Indiana prosecuted me for criminal defamation of court officials. I was given a $600,000 bond, denied charging information, denied evidence, and denied the ability to consult legal counsel prior to trial. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld my convictions based on a hidden threat argument never made by the prosecution. Several years later, I discovered that Barbara Ruwe, Chief Court Reporter for the Dearborn County (IN) Superior Court II, altered grand jury transcripts to assist Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard in his unconstitutional prosecution against me. (Negangard is now the Chief Deputy Attorney General under Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill.) When the Indiana Office of the Public Access Counselor deemed the grand jury audio in my case to be a releasable public record, the Dearborn Superior Court II modified the grand jury audio to ALMOST match the transcripts but came up a little short. In modifying the audio, the “official” copy of the audio does not contain the same amount of information as the transcription of the same audio. Page one of the grand jury transcripts is void of any instruction from the prosecutor and begins with witness testimony. This gave Negangard the freedom to request indictments for any alleged conduct regardless of truth, because Negangard knew such instruction would be omitted from the official record. As such, I have refiled my public records lawsuit seeking grand jury audio and I have filed a motion for Post-Conviction Relief to have my convictions thrown out.

Here are links to my Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, my refiled Lawsuit Seeking Public Records, and a letter to the clerk of the Dearborn Superior Court II. It is important to note that Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill is aware of the above information because I included the above information in a letter to Attorney General Hill sent via certified mail. Feel free to contact the Office of the Attorney General with any concerns about Negangard’s abuse of the grand jury process.

Judge Sally McLaughlin's Court Altered Grand Jury Audio

Part 1 of a two blog series on tampering grand jury audio.

Judge Sally A. McLaughlin
Superior Court IIDearborn County Indiana

The recent release of grand jury audio by the Dearborn Superior Court II (“Court”), under Judge Sally A. McLaughlin, provides conclusive evidence that the Court altered grand jury records, renamed audio files, while billing Dan Brewington for expenses incurred by the Court in altering grand jury audio. The Office of the Dearborn County Prosecutor, under Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard, made Brewington the target of a grand jury investigation just five days after the Indiana Supreme Court dismissed a complaint against Negangard that was filed by Brewington. Brewington became the target of a grand jury investigation for making “unsubstantiated statements” on the internet about Dearborn County Court Officials filed by Brewington. During Brewington’s trial, the Court and Prosecution provided Brewington with only the transcripts from the grand jury proceedings to determine what aspects of Brewington’s conduct that the Prosecution alleged to be unlawful while knowing the Court altered the records of the grand jury proceedings.

It is important to note that the grand jury audio begins at witness testimony as Judge McLaughlin’s Court omitted Negangard’s introduction to the grand jury from the audio record. The following excerpt from the grand jury transcripts by Prosecutor Negangard is just one example of where the Court altered the record of the grand jury proceedings. The statements in question allegedly occurred on March 1, 2011, in the closing moments of the second day of the grand jury investigation of Brewington. Page 336, lines 23-25 of the grand jury transcripts represent Negangard stating,

“I don't have any further questions at this time. Okay one of the Grand Jurors has a question for Sheriff Krieinhop.”

At first glance, nothing seems out of the ordinary; however, the transcripts fail to show that Negangard’s second statement comes from a later point in the proceedings. The following visual provides insight into one section of the altered record:

The box in the lower left hand corner shows Negangard’s statements as they appear in the transcripts but Negangard’s second statement exists in a separate audio file later in time. The green audio frequency wave represents a real time account of Negangard’s statements, with one exception. For the purpose of this demonstration, the two separate audio files received from the Court were spliced “as-is” to match Negangard’s dialogue in the transcripts. The placement of Negangard’s spoken words is where the individual words appear in the appropriate digital wavelength. As shown in the diagram, approximately 19 seconds of ambient noise occupy the space between Negangard’s statements. The circled point represents the point where the two audio files are spliced. The transcripts give no indication of the 19-second gap in the audio demonstrated in the wavelength above. Neither the transcripts nor the digital representation of the audio give any indication that the Court secretly removed at least one entire audio file existing in the 19-seconds of silence between Negangard’s two statements. 

Here is where it gets a little technical. Though the file structure is not rocket science, it is impossible to prove Judge McLaughlin’s Court altered the audio without figuring out the file naming structure of the court recording system. In reviewing audio files from public court proceedings, the audio recording systems in place for court reporting in Dearborn County Courts automatically store audio from court proceedings in individual five-minute files. In addition, the date and time are included in the automated file naming process. If an hour-long hearing occurs in the Superior Court II on July 4, 2016 at 10:00am, the first audio file name would include “Superior 2_20160704_1000”. In five minutes, the recording system automatically creates a new audio file, which would include “Superior 2_20160704_1005” in the following new file name. Every five minutes the name changes with the time: 1010, 1015, 1020 and so on. If you request public trial audio from a specific date, the court will provide a CD-R with similarly named five-minute files. When the Indiana Public Access Counsel issued his opinion (April 14, 2016) in favor of releasing the grand jury audio, the Court filed an order to release an edited version of the grand jury audio. The Court’s April 20, 2016 order made a new allegation that the audio of “four to five” other grand jury proceedings were intertwined with Brewington’s proceedings. Due to the new claim of confidential grand jury audio allegedly intertwined with Brewington’s grand jury proceedings, the Court’s order directed McLaughlin’s court reporter to edit the grand jury audio to include only portions of audio pertaining to Brewington. The Court changed the file format of the audio to an editable .wav file and combined the individual audio files. When the Court combined audio files, it retained the file name of the first audio file in the compilation. When the Court cut out segments of the audio, it began a new compilation of audio files and retained the name of the next audio segment that the Court decided to include in the "official" record. Negangard's statement on line 23 is the last statement appearing on the file named “Superior 2_20110301-1606_01cbd82ab1003d00”. Negangard's statement appearing on line 24 is located in the file named “Superior 2_20110301-1622_01cbd82cedc39690”. The first file began at 16:06 (4:06 pm) and the second at 16:22 (4:22 pm). The length of the audio in the first file is 10 minutes and 36, which would end at roughly 16:17. The earliest point that Negangard's statement on line 24 could have occurred is at 16:22. The audio is void of Negangard making any verbal recognition of the beginning or end of the record. Because a gap of over five minutes exists between the two audio files, the Court deleted at least an entire audio file from the grand jury audio released to Brewington. A problem arises if Judge McLaughlin claims the audio files from the grand jury proceedings do not adhere to the five-minute file structure employed by normal record keeping by the Court. If McLaughlin contends that the Court has the ability to control the length of time by which files are stored simply by switching the recording on and off, any confidentiality concerns about intertwining grand jury investigations are rendered moot, because the audio from the other proceedings would be stored in their own individual files. The argument would completely debunk the Court’s rationalization for altering grand jury audio. The fact Judge McLaughlin’s Court did not physically splice the audio does not make the crime any less egregious. Not splicing the audio is far more insidious as only altering the grand jury transcripts requires a joint effort by the prosecutor and the court. The release of grand jury transcripts is extremely rare and the release of audio is almost unheard of. If not for the release of the grand jury audio and an understanding of the file structure produced by Dearborn County Court reporting, Negangard and McLaughlin could continue to abuse the grand jury process.

Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard
Dearborn County, Indiana

There should be little doubt as to whether Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard and Judge Sally A. McLaughlin are aware of the procedures involved with recording grand jury proceeding. For several years, Negangard served as Chief Deputy Prosecutor under McLaughlin until McLaughlin’s 2006 appointment to her current position of Superior Court II Judge, where Negangard was subsequently appointed take over McLaughlin’s position of Dearborn County Prosecutor. According to Negangard’s recent endorsement of Indiana Attorney General Candidate Curtis Hill, Negangard served as Chairman and President of both the Indiana Prosecuting Attorney’s Council and the Association of Indiana Prosecuting Attorney’s Council. In early 2016, McLaughlin went through the interview process as an applicant for a vacancy on the Indiana Supreme Court. Any claim of ignorance about simple court reporting procedure is not a defense in this case.

This is Part 1 of a two-blog series on the analysis of the release of the grand jury audio. Part 2 takes aim at the conflicting orders and letters in the Court’s attempts to obstruct access to the tampered records. There are many other examples where the transcripts and audio do not match up. As the Dearborn County Superior Court II threatened to hold Brewington in contempt for sharing the grand jury audio (altered by the Superior Court II), the audio is not available online but may be shared with individuals who express interest via email. Feel free to contact Dan Brewington at contactdanbrewington@gmail.com with any questions or comments. Feel free to share with others, especially law enforcement.