state of tennessee, ) defendant. ) )...
Post on 26-Mar-2018
215 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
F
IN THE CHANCERY COURT FOR DECATUR COUNTY, TEN1ESSEEAPR 01 2014
SHAYNE KYLE AUSTIN, )‘ ELIZABETH CARPENTER) $CLERK&I4ATER /)Plaintiff, )
) CascNo.6O/V3?O)
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ))
Defendant. )
COMPLAINT
Comes now Plaintiff, Shayne Kyle Austin, by and through his counsel, Luke A.
Evans, and for his complaint against the above-named Defendant, alleges as follows:
I. Summary
1.1 Plaintiff brings this action to enforce his rights under an Immunity
Agreement (“Agreement”) entered into between Plaintiff and the State of Tennessee, on
March 6, 2014.
1.2 Although Plaintiff is in full compliance with the terms of the Agreement,
the Defendant has stated that said agreement is null and void and has specifically
declared its intention to proceed in a prosecution against the plaintiff in relation to the
Holly Bobo investigation.
1.3 Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the State has breached the Immunity
Agreement, as well as an ex parte restraining order and immediate and permanent
injunction barring the Defendant from seeking an indictment or otherwise criminally
charging Plaintiff
II. Parties
2.1 Plaintiff, Shayne Kyle Austin, is a resident of Decatur County, Tennessee
who is bound by the immunity agreement entered into between the parties on March 6,
2014 and is in danger of sustaining immediate irreparable inju and loss as a result of the
actions of the Defendant.
2.2 Defendant, State of Tennessee, is the entity responsible for prosecuting
crime in the State of Tennessee, acting through its agents, namely Hansel McCadams,
District Attorney General for the 24th Judicial District and Beth C. Boswell, Assistant
District Attorney General for the 24th Judicial District, who were and are empowered in
their official capacities to enter into and bind the State of Tennessee to the terms of the
Agreement entered into by the parties on March 6, 2014.
Ill. Jurisdiction
3.1 This Court possesses jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article I, section 8 of the
Constitution of the State of Tennessee, and Tennessee Code Annotated sections 29-14
101, 102, 103 and 104, as well as State v. Howington, 907 S.W.2d 403, (Tenn. 1995).
IV. Venue
4.1 Venue is appropriate in this Court because a substantial part of the events
giving rise to the claims brought by Plaintiff occurred or are to occur in Decatur County,
Tennessee.
V. Factual Statements
5.1 On March 6, 2014, the State of Tennessee, by and through Assistant
District Attorney for the 24th Judicial District of Tennessee, Beth C. Boswell (“Boswell”),
and Plaintiff, Shayne Kyle Austin, entered into a contract titled “Immunity Agreement”
(hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement”). A copy of the Agreement is attached to this
Complaint as Exhibit A.
5.2 As a part of the Agreement, Plaintiff was to provide “cooperation” to the
Defendant in exchange for immunity for certain charges, including charges arising from
the Holly Hobo investigation.
5.3 Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and in reliance that the State
would likewise honor its obligations, on March 6, 2014, Plaintiff forwent certain
constitutional protections, including his right against self-incrimination, and met with
members of law enforcement to begin performance of his obligations under said
Agreement.
5.4 On March 27, 2014, Boswell communicated via email (Exhibit B), and
later by letter (Exhibit C), with counsel for Plaintiff to relay the State’s unequivocal
intention to breach the Agreement by prosecuting Plaintiff. Boswcll stated that the
immunity agreement was “null and void” and that Plaintiff “would not be given
immunity.”
5.5 Plaintiff continues to maintain his intention to fulfill his obligations under
the agreement and thus expects to receive the benefits bargained for in the Agreement
from the State of Tennessee.
COUNT I(Anticipatory Breach of Contract)
6.1 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference the allegations contained
in paragraphs 5.1 —-5.5 of this Complaint the same as if they were repeated herein
verbatim,
6.2 The State and the Plaintiff entered into a binding and legally enforceable
contract, the Agreement. on or about March 6, 2014.
6.3 Boswell’s communications on March 27, 2014, indicating the State’s
unequivocal intent to seek an indictment against Plaintiff, amounts to a total and
unqualified refusal to perform the State’s obligations under the Agreement.
6.4 The State has not sought prior determination from any Court as to whether
the Agreement is valid or whether the State should be allowed to prosecute and/or charge
Plaintiff despite the agreement.
6.5 The State has unilaterally determined that Plaintiff did not comply with
the terms of the agreement, and thus unilaterally declared the Agreement to be null and
void.
6.6 Plaintiff is entitled to receive the benefits bargained for in the Agreement,
namely to be immune from prosecution.
6.7 Plaintiff will be immediately irreparably harmed if the State is not ordered
to specifically perform its obligations under the Agreement and further restrained from
any further prosecution of the Plaintiff as bargained for in the Agreement.
6.8 There present exists a genuine controversy requiring the Court to
determine the parties’ rights and responsibilities under the Agreement and the laws of the
State of Tennessee.
6.9 Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law because, inter aim, monetary
damages are unavailable to Plaintiff.
COUNT II(Injunctive Relief)
7. 1 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference the allegations contained
in paragraphs 5, l6.9 of this Complaint the same as if they were repeated herein
verbatim.
7.2 Plaintiff will sustain immediate and irreparable injury or loss if the
Defendant is not immediately restrained from seeking any formal charges and/or
initiating any prosecution, whatsoever against Plaintiff as bargained for in the
Agreement.
7.3 If the Defendant is permitted to perpetrate the breach promised, i.e.
criminally charging the Plaintiff, his liberty interest will be affected by his immediate
arrest and detention.
7.4 If the Defendant is not restrained from breaching the Agreement, Plaintiff
will be immediately and irreparably injured by being immediately detained and held in
custody on an insurmountable bond.
7.5 If an immediate injunction is not entered, a final judgment in this action
will become ineffectual, as the State’s breach, as anticipated, cannot be cured once
committed.
COUNT III(Violation of Due Process as Guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution andArticle 1, section 8 of the Constitution of the State of Tennessee)
8.1 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference the allegations contained
in paragraphs 5.1 —7.5 of this Complaint the same as if they were repeated herein
verbatim.
8.2 The Agreement conferred upon Plaintiff property and liberty interests that
are protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution
and Article I. section 8 of the Constitution of the State of Tennessee.
8.3 In return for the Defendant’s promises. Plaintiff agreed to cooperate with
the State by providing the information as stated in the Agreement.
8.4 In return for the Defendant’s promises, Plaintiff agreed to waive his right
against self incrimination by cooperating with the State.
8.5 Plaintiff remains in compliance with his obligations; however, Boswell
has indicated the State’s unequivocal intention to dishonor the tenns of the Agreement.
8.6 The Defendant deprived Plaintiff of the due process of law by unilaterally
determining that the Agreement was null and void and indicating its intention to
criminally prosecute Plaintiff
8,7 Plaintiff is prepared to continue to fully and completely perform his
ongoing obligations under the Agreement, as should the State.
8.8 There is an actual controversy between the Plaintiff and the Defendant,
and there are continuing adverse effects to Plaintiff resulting from the Defendant’s
actions.
8.9 Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to a declaratory judgment that (1)
Plaintiff has liberty interest in the Agreement that are protected by the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 1, section 8 of the
Constitution of the State of Tennessee; (2) it is for the Court to determine, as set forth in
State v. Howinglon. 907 S.W.2d 403. (Tenn. 1995), to determine whether Plaintiff has
breached any of its obligations under the Agreement; (3) prior to commencing criminal
prosecution against Plaintiff, Defendant must first obtain a judicial determination that
Plaintiff has committed a material breach of the Agreement by proof beyond a reasonable
doubt: and (4) the Defendant is obligated to specifically perform under the Agreement.
COUNT IV(Specific Performance)
9.1 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference the allegations contained
in paragraphs 5.1 — 8.9 of this Complaint the same as if they were repeated here in full.
9.2 The Defendant entered into a binding and legally enforceable contract
with Plaintiff on March 6, 2014.
9.3 The correspondence from Boswell unilaterally declaring the Agreement
null and void and declaring the State’s intent to indict the Plaintiff constitutes a material
constructive breach of the Agreement.
9.4 Plaintiff lacks an adequate remedy at law.
9.5 Plaintiff has a right to specific performance of the Agreement.
9.6 Plaintiff will be immediately and irreparably harmed if the State is not
ordered to honor the Agreement.
COUNT V(Promissory Estoppel)
10.1 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference the allegations contained
in paragraphs 5.1 —9.6 of this Complaint the same as if they were repeated here in full.
10.2 In exchange for his cooperation, the Defendant promised the Plaintiff
immunity,
10.3 The Plaintiff detrimentally relied on that promise in that he stepped from
the protections afforded him under both the United States and the Tennessee
Constitutions and provided evidence beyond that required under the law. The Plaintiff
also provided information that, but for the promise of immunity, could have been deemed
incriminating and used against him. The Defendant knew, or should have known, that
Plaintiff’s cooperation would result in a detriment to the Plaintiff if the State failed to
honor its promises.
10.4 The Defendant knew, or should have known, that the promises set forth in
the agreement would be relied upon by the Plaintiff.
10.5 The promises made by the Defendant should be enforced to avoid
injustice.
COUNT VI(Request for Immediate Ex Parte Restraining Order
Pursuant to Rule 65 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure)
11.1 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference the allegations contained
in paragraphs 5.1 — 10.5 of this Complaint the same as if they were repeated here in full.
11.2 Based upon the facts set forth herein, Plaintiff will suffer immediate and
irreparable injury if he is deprived of his bargained for immunity from prosecution in
exchange for giving incriminating evidence to the State.
11.3 Once the State has proceeded with their breach, as promised, namely
initiating the criminal prosecution of the Plaintiff, Plaintiff will have no adequate remedy
for the Defendant’s breach of the Agreement.
11.4 The Defendant may convene a special grand jury at any time to seek an
indictment against Plaintiff. Therefore, there is no time to delay for a full hearing on this
matter.
11.5 Once the Defendant has breached the Agreement, Plaintiff will be arrested
and detained, causing Plaintiff to be deprived of his constitutionally protected liberty
interest.
1 1.6 Once detained. Plaintiff will likely be held without bond. or with a bond
so excessive, that Plaintiff is denied a meaningful opportunity to be released from jail.
11.7 Furthermore, pursuant to State v. Howington, 907 S.W.2d 403, (Tenn.
1995), having proven the existence of an immunity agreement, the burden now shifts to
the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Plaintiff has breached the immunity
agreement before the State is permitted to breach the Agreement and institute a criminal
prosecution against Plaintiff.
11.8 Plaintiff will be immediately injured by the deprivation of his due process
rights if the State is permitted to unilaterally determine that the Agreement is void.
11.9 Therefore, Plaintiff will be immediately and irreparably injured if the
Defendant is not immediately restrained from prosecuting Plaintiff before Defendant can
be heard in opposition.
WHEREFORE, AND IN CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE, THE
PLAINTIFF PRAYS:
1. That this Court issue an immediate Ex Parte Order pursuant to Rule 65 of
the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure restraining the Defendant from instituting any
criminal prosecution against Plaintiff and setting this matter for a prompt hearing to
determine if the Restraining Order should be converted to an injunction;
2. For an Order of this Court entering a declaratory judgment fmding that the
Agreement is a valid contract and fully enforceable under the laws of the State of
Tennessee.
3. That this Court issue a preliminary injunction that prevents the Defendant
from initiating or taking any steps to initiate or taking any steps to further pursue any
criminal prosecution against Plaintiff.
4. That this Court issue a permanent injunction effectuating the terms and
conditions of the Agreement;
5, For such further, general relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
BULLOCK,FLY,HORNSBY & EVANS
LUKE A. EVANS, BPR #23620Attorney for Plaiiitiff302 North Spring St.P.O. Box 398Murfreesboro, TN 37133-0398(615) 896-4154
STATE OF TENNESSEE ))
COUNTY OF RUTHERFORD )
I, Shayne Kyle Austin, Plaintiff in the foregoing Complaint, hereby make oath
that the facts stated and contained therein are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this l day of , 2014.
My Commission Expires: ) U I
CIMMUNITY AGREEMENT
Comes now the State of Tennessee, by and through the District Attorney
General for the 24th Judicial Circuit, or his duly appointed Assistant and hereby enters
nto the following immunity agreement with Shayne Kyle Austin (date of birth
11/14/1984;
Shayne Kyle Austin agrees to cooperate and assist the State in the Holly Bobo
investigation, including providing information, accompanying law enforcement to any
location requested, and testify, if necessary, to any and all matters that he has facts
concerning. Shayne Kyle Austin, by signing this agreement, agrees that he has made
full and candid disclosure of all information pertaining to the activity in question.
Under the terms of this agreement Shayne Kyle Austin agrees to make himself
available to the investigative agency, as needed, at any time in the future. In
exchange for the total cooperation of Shayne Kyle Austin, the State agrees to grant
him immunity for all charges arising out of the disposal, destruction, burial, and/or
concealment of Holly Bobo’s deceased body, conditioned upon him assisting us in
recovering the body of Holly Lynn Bobo. The State hereby agrees not to charge
Shayne Kyle Austin with Tampering with Evidence or Accessory After the Fact if he
was present for, it he participated in, of ii he has information concerning the disposal,
destruction, burial, and or concealment of Holly Bobo’s deceased body or any other
items of evidence connected to or belonging to Holly Lynn Bobo. This agreement s
conditioned upon the body of Holly Lynn Bobo being recovered from the site or
EXHIBIT
location indicated by Shayne Kyle Austin; there being clear evidence that Holly Lynn
Bobos deceased body was previously present at the location indicated by Shayne Kyle
Austin; and/or there being no credible evidence that negates the fact that Holly Lynn
Bobos deceased body was previously present at the location indicated by Shayne Kyle
Austin.
The State agrees to grant Shayne Kyle Austin immunity for any other criminal
charges arising from the investigation of the Holly Lynn Bobo case unless there is
independent corroborative physical, forensic evidence or eyewitness testimony
(excluding coconspirators, charged or uncharged) which implicates Shayne Kyle
Austin to such crimes.
The State further agrees to give Shayne Kyle Austin immunity for information
concerning the possession of any controlled substances, the sale of any controlled
substances, the possession of drug paraphernalia, and/or any other drug related
criminal activity (not to include any drugs administered to Holly Lynn Bobo). The
State agrees to further grant Shayne Kyle Austin immunity for any criminal charges
which could arise from any and all prior statements given by Shayne Kyle Austin to
any law enforcement officer or agent, including perjury for any information given in
sworn statements to any agent with the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, whether
by inclusion or omission. This agreement covers all activity from January 1, 2011
through todays date, March 6, 2014.
This entire agreement is null and void, and Shayne Kyle Austin will not be
granted immunity under this agreement if it is determined that Shayne Kyle Austin has
- Paco 2 of 3 2aes -
not been completely truthful, forthcoming and cooperative as to any and all aspects of
this investigation and any prosecutions related to this investigation.
Date: March 6, 2014
Shain ç’le Austin Beth C. BoswellAssistant District Attorney General
Luke Evans
_____________________
Bullock, Fly, Hornsby & Evans Russ WinklerAttorney for Shane Kyle Austin Assistant Special Agent in Charge
Tennessee Bureau of Investigation
vage 3 of 3 Poges
top related