The Concurrent Grand Jury was sworn in on May 5, had a full day of training on various laws, areas of enforcement, and specific law enforcement apprehension procedures on May 6, and then met between May 19-Aug. 26, every other Monday and Tuesday. The CGJ took several facility tours during its term, including the Hamilton County juvenile and adult jails, and the Real Time Intelligence Center. The training and tours assisted the CGJ in making educated and thoughtful decisions
throughout its term.
Hamilton County has two grand juries (Concurrent and Regular) that meet on alternate weeks and share the same duties and responsibilities; both hear evidence from law enforcement officers and determine if a person arrested or being investigated for a crime should be formally charged with that crime. This report is the Concurrent Grand Jury’s - the Regular Grand Jury has a separate report.
The CGJ was a mixed group in terms of professional and life experiences, education, specific technical expertise, ideologies, ethnicity, and ages ranging from 20’s to 70’s. There were 13 regular grand jurors, with six alternates, guided by foreman Rosemarie Hill. We were a committed and absorbed jury who listened and questioned the testifying officers, and sought clarification from the district attorney on specific laws as needed.
We also spoke amongst ourselves - sometimes rather energetically – to gather as much information as needed to make crucial and independent decisions. With every case, before coming to a decision on indictment or not, we considered the facts presented to us as well as the impacts on victims, the accused, law enforcement, and the public. All decisions to indict were unanimous.
We were presented with 167 cases which contained 485 separate charges, of which we returned 481 true bills and 4 no bills. We considered 57 direct presentments of case facts that contained 278 separate charges, of which we returned 280 true bills and 2 no bills.
Case presentations and issues; information provided by law enforcement
When a case is presented to the CGJ by an officer, he or she has already spent many hours on apprehensions, arrests, follow-up fact and evidence investigations, paperwork, and reports to the District Attorneys as necessary. Thus, cases brought to the CGJ are generally well prepared and seldom without merit. After the evidence is presented, we can question the presenting officer. We then have everyone leave our hearing room, and we discuss the cases and vote on whether to indict (true bill) or not (no bill). The discussions and votes are, by law, confidential and we only report whether the case was indicted or not.
Presenting law enforcement officers this term came from both state and surrounding jurisdictions, including Hamilton County, Chattanooga, East Ridge, Collegedale, Red Bank, Signal Mountain, Soddy Daisy, Sale Creek, the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, Tennessee Highway Patrol, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Bureau, the Corrections Department of the Hamilton County Jail, both the UTC and Chattanooga State Police, and the Tennessee Environmental and Conservation Department.
We heard and reviewed details of many different crimes, including first-degree premeditated murder, second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, and reckless endangerment; targeted and random shootings often resulting in serious injury or death; rape of adults and children; (sometimes horrific) child abuse; human trafficking; assault including aggravated and domestic; theft of all sorts from businesses, homes, and vehicles; breaking and entering; burglary of homes, businesses, cars, and other vehicles; fraud of many types; false reports to police; identity thefts of frightening creativity; many variations of unlawful drug possession, manufacture and sale; and driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, often as a second or greater offense.
The CGJ is generally impressed with the thoroughness of the testifying officers, not only in presenting cases but in answering follow-up questions. These answers provide both context for a specific case and information on general law enforcement and apprehension procedures. However, some officers were not organized or completely effective in helping us understand the facts surrounding the initial apprehension and factors leading to an arrest. This type of poor preparation is still very much the exception but is a definite problem when it happens.
Of great assistance to the CGJ are simple things such as speaking clearly, slowly, and loudly enough for everyone to hear and comprehend, having reasonably organized facts, and if helpful, using videos, photos, or diagrams to help explain the facts. An officer may and should choose his or her own method of presentation of the arrest charges, but the CGJ needs narratives to be clear and complete. For instance, if there is a charge listed and the officer cannot testify for certain on the facts of that charge, then the CGJ must no bill it.
The staff that manages the order and presentation of witnesses for CGJ does an outstanding job of coordinating the many officer schedules and contingencies. Don Klasing, CGJ liaison on behalf of the Hamilton County Sheriff’s office, and Sgts. April Bolton and Karli Thomas of the Chattanooga Police Department remained indispensable in their continuing efforts to ensure officer availability for hearings. Both Bolton and Thomas have moved to other positions within the CPD, and we wish them the best and will miss their help and gentle humor. Sgt. Neysa Rios has moved over to the liaison office, and she will now handle the liaison duties - and thus far she has been knowledgeable on cases and exhibited a fine sense of seriousness mixed with good humor. Scheduling grand jury hearings is no easy task as officers have many duties and time constraints that sometimes make it difficult to appear at a certain time.
District Attorney General Coty Wamp explained much about our criminal legal system and the burden of proof the CGJ must consider. She spoke to us at the beginning and end, as well as throughout our term. Her advice was organized and very helpful to our deliberations. She also understands the heavy burden on the grand jury with some of the more horrible cases, and is always there for our questions or concerns. She or one of her assistant DAs was present for every case presentation to answer our legal and process questions. The DAs do not present evidence, and they are not present when we vote to return either a true bill (indictment) or a no bill (no indictment) on a case. In fact, no persons other than the grand jurors and the foreman are present for consideration, discussions, and voting on each case. We note that should there be any misconception, no member of the DAs office has ever tried to influence our decisions on whether to indict a case or not.
Training and tours this term
In addition to case presentations, several law enforcement officers took the time to help us understand the structures, challenges, and internal workings of law enforcement in processing crimes, both during training and throughout the hearings. Almost every officer was quick to answer our questions, both about case specifics and general apprehensions and arrests.
Officer Terry Topping of the Chattanooga Police Department provided us with solid information about drugs and drug crimes in our communities, including the havoc wreaked by Fentanyl and the appearance of “new drugs.” He illustrated this drug damage with specific examples and videos. The effects of illegal drugs on individuals are horrible and the concomitant community chaos and destruction are real. As the CGJ heard cases, we began to understand that illegal drug use, sale, and manufacture are at the basis of many crimes, from theft to rape and murder.
Officer Ryan Lynn presented very helpful information and demonstrations on DUI issues in the field including apprehensions, arrests, field sobriety tests, and general handling of these dangerous situations involving impaired drivers on our roads.
Officer Brandon Watson presented great information about the Crisis Co-Response Unit of the Chattanooga Police Department. We are grateful for the existence of this CCRU and its combination of law enforcement officers, social and case workers, first responders, and courts in assisting citizens in need of mental health care. It appears that Officer Watson and his team have built up the CCRU and they are dedicated to continuing and expanding this help to the most needy in our community. We commend the work.
We learned about the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network and various gun issues from Sgt. Josh May. NIBIN automates ballistic evaluations and provides actionable investigative leads in a timely manner. The work on analyzing guns and gun usage gives officers critical information on past and sometimes future gun crimes.
We very much appreciated meeting Officer David Gerity and his K-9 partner Sully. Training a K-9 officer is no easy task, but the results can be tremendous. In fact, Sully has been in the news lately for finding weapons and completing other successful apprehension tasks.
The CGJ was able to tour the Hamilton County Jail and Detention Center as well as the Hamilton Juvenile Court this term. At the Jail, Captain Rodney Terrell accompanied us through portions of the new facilities and pointed out improvements to the older ones. He answered our questions and provided solid information on the facilities and operation of the jail. One of our members noted that there were brooms and mops in various places at the jail which were accessible to the inmates or anyone else. Although we weren’t certain how much of a problem this might be, we later heard two
cases where inmates had used broom or mop handles as weapons to viciously attack officers and fellow inmates. Hence, we certainly recommend that the environments all around the jail remain constantly and creatively monitored, with an eye towards any potential danger.
Our tour of the juvenile detention facilities was also informative and all our questions were answered. That facility remains woefully outdated and we strongly recommend resources to improve it. Nevertheless, we believe the directors and staff, beginning with Judge Rob Philyaw, have worked diligently and creatively with what they have to create a jail facility for adolescents that is as good as it can be. It appears that Judge Philyaw and his folks have maintained a smart but caring environment for juvenile detainees.
There is always a certain amount of misinformation about the operation and facilities of the Jail and the Juvenile Detention Center amongst the public, much of which comes from the media and detainee’s families, or sometimes from a bias against any law enforcement agency or facility. Also, misinformation comes from fundamental ignorance of the laws and ordinances under which jails must operate. Our jails, whether adult or juvenile, must follow numerous state and other laws, municipal ordinances, and various regulations. The facilities and actions of the staff are governed continually by regulation and sometimes by popular outcry. The folks who who reside in the jails are not always happy, reasonable, or law-abiding. There are personal prejudices on all sides of the fence in a prison system. Jails are dangerous and tough, and the operations and staff are continually scrutinized, as they must be.
We know that the allocation of resources for any public project is not an easy task for those who budget and vote on allocations. Still, we strongly recommend that resources for the employees of our jails (whether law enforcement or civil) be increased. And that improvements to safety, cleanliness, and other living conditions of the inmates be continually addressed and funded. When all is said and done, however, we do recognize that any jail remains just that - a jail.
Another tour that was particularly informative during our initial training was that of the Real Time Intelligence Center. That facility uses cutting-edge technology to assist in crime prevention and apprehension. It has live feeds from roughly 3,000 cameras in our area, including from the Chattanooga Housing Authority, and various schools and businesses that share their feeds with the CPD as needed. RTIC also has more than 85 public cameras throughout the city. RTIC can livestream officer body cams to receive information from officers on location as well as warn them of
potential problems they are walking into.
The staff of RTIC monitor the electronic information continually and can quickly send officers where needed for emergencies or other potential problems. The CGJ was very impressed with this facility and how it is run. We thank Sgt. Billy Atwell for providing us with the tour and highly commend the officers and civil employees who operate RTIC.
Specialized Recovery Courts
Our Criminal and Sessions courts have specialized courts for drug recovery, mental health and veterans’ assistance. Judges Amanda Dunn of Criminal Court and Christie Sell of General Sessions Court oversee the drug recovery courts; Criminal Court Judge Boyd Patterson and Sessions Court Judge Lila Statom oversee the mental health courts, and Judge Patterson and Sessions Court Judge Gary Starnes handle the veterans’ courts. These judges described the processes, goals, and results of these specialized court programs.
The specialized courts are not “an easy out” for defendants, despite what some believe. There are strict guidelines that govern who can enter the program, and for success, there must be a great deal of commitment from the judges, their staff, and the defendant participants. Handling these specialized recovery courts is in addition to the regular court duties of each of these overseeing judges. We recommend that the public become more aware of these courts, how they operate, and their positive results. It is emotionally positive to sit in on a drug recovery court graduation and appreciate the difference that the program made to someone who thought there was no way out of their drug dilemmas.
Much of the recidivism in our criminal system is due to abuse of alcohol and drugs, or an individual’s mental health degradation for other reasons. Veterans face drug and mental health issues that are often unique to their military service. We strongly recommend that any resources necessary to continue these specialized programs and courts must be seriously reviewed and considered by the allocating bodies – whether federal, state or local.
Recommendation for a local testing lab
The previous two CGJ panels recommended that our legislators take whatever steps are necessary to get a full evidence testing lab in Hamilton County. Chattanooga is the only one of the “four main cities” (Nashville, Memphis, Knoxville, and Chattanooga) that does not have its own lab. This lack of local lab facilities creates case backlogs, postponement of trials, inability to get all needed evidence
analyzed, and is simply unacceptable.
Conclusion
All of the assistant DAs who came before the CGJ were professional and helpful to our understanding of the law that applied to the cases we heard. We believe the leadership and ongoing work of the DA’s office is in solid and capable hands with Coty Wamp and her attorneys and staff. We appreciated Ed Duke and Jackie Pinckney from the DAs office who handle and organize all the case files and charging documents. One of them was indispensably present each hearing day. We must also specifically thank ADA Tom Landis (who spent the most time with us) for his wisdom, patience, knowledge, and most excellent sense of humor that often helped us through the toughest cases.
Hamilton County Circuit Court Clerk Larry Henry and his staff – particularly Margo McConnell – are responsible for the grand jurors’ well-being and care. They are there from the first day the jury is sworn in to the last day of our service. They are always quickly responsive and helpful to us. We appreciate and thank our Hamilton County Criminal Court Judges Barry Steelman, Boyd Patterson, and Amanda Dunn for overseeing the grand juries along with all their other duties. Judge Steelman was responsible for the CGJ this term and helped us with a number of issues. All three spoke with us and demonstrated continued support for a grand jury that is responsible, knowledgeable, capable and independent. Judge Tom Greenholtz from the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals spoke with us as well. He was inspiring, engaging, and helped us think about the criminal justice system in new ways – we truly enjoyed hearing from him.
If we’ve forgotten to thank anyone, it is our lack and not theirs and we apologize.
Rosemarie L. Hill, CGJ
Foreman