state of tennessee, ) defendant. ) )...

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)


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)


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)


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)


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

state of tennessee, ) defendant. ) )...

Documents