) CascNo.6O/V3?O APR ) $CLERK&I4ATER /) ) ) Comes now Plaintiff, Shayne Kyle Austin, by and through his counsel, Luke A.

Transcription

1 ) CascNo.6O/V3?O Plaintiff, ) SHAYNE KYLE AUSTIN, ) ELIZABETH CARPENTER ) $CLERK&I4ATER /) APR IN THE CHANCERY COURT FOR DECATUR COUNTY, TEN1ESSEE who is bound by the immunity agreement entered into between the parties on March 6, 2.1 Plaintiff, Shayne Kyle Austin, is a resident of Decatur County, Tennessee II. Parties charging Plaintiff injunction barring the Defendant from seeking an indictment or otherwise criminally Agreement, as well as an ex parte restraining order and immediate and permanent 1.3 Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the State has breached the Immunity Holly Bobo investigation. declared its intention to proceed in a prosecution against the plaintiff in relation to the the Defendant has stated that said agreement is null and void and has specifically 1.2 Although Plaintiff is in full compliance with the terms of the Agreement, March 6, Agreement ( Agreement ) entered into between Plaintiff and the State of Tennessee, on 1.1 Plaintiff brings this action to enforce his rights under an Immunity I. Summary Evans, and for his complaint against the above-named Defendant, alleges as follows: Comes now Plaintiff, Shayne Kyle Austin, by and through his counsel, Luke A. COMPLAINT Defendant. ) STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) ) F

2 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 24 th Judicial District and Beth C. Boswell, Assistant District Attorney General for the 24 th 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, 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 , 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 24 th 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.

3 from the State of Tennessee. verbatim, the Holly Hobo investigation. 5.3 Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and in reliance that the State 6.1 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference the allegations contained Defendant in exchange for immunity for certain charges, including charges arising from would likewise honor its obligations, on March 6, 2014, Plaintiff forwent certain constitutional protections, including his right against self-incrimination, and met with Agreement. immunity. (Anticipatory Breach of Contract) COUNT I contract, the Agreement. on or about March 6, the agreement and thus expects to receive the benefits bargained for in the Agreement immunity agreement was null and void and that Plaintiff would not be given intention to breach the Agreement by prosecuting Plaintiff. Boswcll stated that the later by letter (Exhibit C), with counsel for Plaintiff to relay the State s unequivocal members of law enforcement to begin performance of his obligations under said 5.2 As a part of the Agreement, Plaintiff was to provide cooperation to the 5.4 On March 27, 2014, Boswell communicated via (Exhibit B), and 5.5 Plaintiff continues to maintain his intention to fulfill his obligations under in paragraphs of this Complaint the same as if they were repeated herein 6.2 The State and the Plaintiff entered into a binding and legally enforceable

4 unequivocal intent to seek an indictment against Plaintiff, amounts to a total and unqualified refusal to perform the State s obligations under the Agreement. namely to be immune from prosecution. determine the parties rights and responsibilities under the Agreement and the laws of the damages are unavailable to Plaintiff. verbatim. to specifically perform its obligations under the Agreement and further restrained from in paragraphs 5, l6.9 of this Complaint the same as if they were repeated herein 7. 1 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference the allegations contained 6.5 The State has unilaterally determined that Plaintiff did not comply with Plaintiff despite the agreement. (Injunctive Relief) COUNT II the Agreement is valid or whether the State should be allowed to prosecute and/or charge void. 6.6 Plaintiff is entitled to receive the benefits bargained for in the Agreement, 6.7 Plaintiff will be immediately irreparably harmed if the State is not ordered any further prosecution of the Plaintiff as bargained for in the Agreement. State of Tennessee. 6.4 The State has not sought prior determination from any Court as to whether the terms of the agreement, and thus unilaterally declared the Agreement to be null and 6.8 There present exists a genuine controversy requiring the Court to 6.9 Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law because, inter aim, monetary 6.3 Boswell s communications on March 27, 2014, indicating the State s

5 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 and Article 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 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.

6 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)

7 9.1 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 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, 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 of this Complaint the same as if they were repeated here in full. immunity, 10.2 In exchange for his cooperation, the Defendant promised the Plaintiff 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.

8 injustice The promises made by the Defendant should be enforced to avoid the agreement would be relied upon by the Plaintiff. so excessive, that Plaintiff is denied a meaningful opportunity to be released from jail Once detained. Plaintiff will likely be held without bond. or with a bond interest. and detained, causing Plaintiff to be deprived of his constitutionally protected liberty 11.5 Once the Defendant has breached the Agreement, Plaintiff will be arrested matter. indictment against Plaintiff. Therefore, there is no time to delay for a full hearing on this 11.4 The Defendant may convene a special grand jury at any time to seek an for the Defendant s breach of the Agreement. initiating the criminal prosecution of the Plaintiff, Plaintiff will have no adequate remedy 11.3 Once the State has proceeded with their breach, as promised, namely exchange for giving incriminating evidence to the State. irreparable injury if he is deprived of his bargained for immunity from prosecution in 11.2 Based upon the facts set forth herein, Plaintiff will suffer immediate and in paragraphs of this Complaint the same as if they were repeated here in full Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference the allegations contained (Request for Immediate Ex Parte Restraining Order Pursuant to Rule 65 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure) COUNT VI 10.4 The Defendant knew, or should have known, that the promises set forth in

9 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 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 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.

10 conditions of the Agreement; 302 North Spring St. P.O. Box 398 (615) BULLOCK,FLY,HORNSBY & EVANS Respectfully submitted, LUKE A. EVANS, BPR #23620 Attorney for Plaiiitiff Murfreesboro, TN , For such further, general relief as this Court deems just and proper. 4. That this Court issue a permanent injunction effectuating the terms and

11 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 thisl day of, My Commission Expires: ) U I

12 C IMMUNITY AGREEMENT Comes now the State of Tennessee, by and through the District Attorney General for the 24 th 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

13 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 Bobos deceased body was previously present at the location indicated by Shayne Kyle 2 of 3 2aes - - Paco granted immunity under this agreement if it is determined that Shayne Kyle Austin has This entire agreement is null and void, and Shayne Kyle Austin will not be through todays date, March 6, by inclusion or omission. This agreement covers all activity from January 1, 2011 criminal activity (not to include any drugs administered to Holly Lynn Bobo). The which could arise from any and all prior statements given by Shayne Kyle Austin to State agrees to further grant Shayne Kyle Austin immunity for any criminal charges substances, the possession of drug paraphernalia, and/or any other drug related concerning the possession of any controlled substances, the sale of any controlled The State further agrees to give Shayne Kyle Austin immunity for information 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 Austin to such crimes. (excluding coconspirators, charged or uncharged) which implicates Shayne Kyle independent corroborative physical, forensic evidence or eyewitness testimony charges arising from the investigation of the Holly Lynn Bobo case unless there is The State agrees to grant Shayne Kyle Austin immunity for any other criminal Austin. location indicated by Shayne Kyle Austin; there being clear evidence that Holly Lynn

14 vage 3 of 3 Poges Tennessee Bureau of Investigation Attorney for Shane Kyle Austin Assistant Special Agent in Charge Luke Evans Bullock, Fly, Hornsby & Evans Russ Winkler Assistant District Attorney General Shain ç le Austin Beth C. Boswell Date: March 6, 2014 this investigation and any prosecutions related to this investigation. not been completely truthful, forthcoming and cooperative as to any and all aspects of