SEVIERVILLE — Fourth Judicial District Attorney General Jimmy Dunn is facing a new challenge to his authority as citizens have filed a petition to have him removed from office over criminal charges filed against him last month as well as new allegations.
Dunn is the DA for the Fourth Judicial District, which includes Cocke, Sevier, Jefferson and Grainger counties. He had been set to retire last Aug. 31, but withdrew his resignation, shortly after a specially empanaled Sevier County grand jury indicted him. He’s facing charges including official misconduct, official oppression, and civil rights intimidation.
Dunn is already facing a motion to disqualify him based on his retirement announcement. The new petition for an ouster represents a separate legal battle.
The new petition, filed in Sevier County Circuit Court, was signed by Erik Cooper — the person who brought the criminal accusation against Dunn— and 10 other citizens including attorneys TJ Norton, Jordan Whaley, R. Brandon White, Donald Travis Christmas, and Creshelle Douglas.
Kim Pierce, who has run for Sevier County Sheriff and county mayor in the past, is also among the petitioners.
“Investigation has established that ‘reasonable cause’ exists to believe that defendant Dunn has committed acts, omissions and/or offenses set out in TCA 8-37-103,” the petition states. “Counsel for plaintiffs has investigated said facts provided by competition citizens prepared to swear to the same under oath and penalty of perjury.”
Dunn could not be reached Friday afternoon for comment.
The petitioners are represented by Sevier County Attorney Aaron Kimsey.
The allegations they offer against Dunn include the same events that led a grand jury to charge Dunn with official misconduct, retaliation for past action, correction of a state witness, and civil rights intimidation.
Cooper has alleged Dunn abused his office to bring criminal charges against him over a feud over use of the grand jury. Cooper has several ongoing lawsuits against Dunn saying that the DA’s office has interfered with his attempts to take allegations directly to Sevier County grand juries.
Cooper was in court Friday morning looking to have Dunn’s office disqualified from pursuing those charges; the judge in that case indicated he would issue an opinion later.
But the petition includes new allegations, including that Dunn directed an investigator from his office to follow a victim witness coordinator, that he sent the same investigator to a Blount County business to collect money for a friend.
They also indicate that he allowed a confidential juvenile court opinion to be published in a newspaper, and that Dunn’s office refused to prosecute a fraud case recommended by the Tennessee Department of Revenue.
The petitioners asked for Dunn to be suspended pending the final hearing.
“Good cause exists for suspension because the alleged conduct concerns the use of prosecutorial authority, access to the grand jury, treatment of witnesses and employees, use of state investigators for a private purpose, and the administration of the office Defendant Dunn continues to hold," the petition said.
The document indicates Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti has been served with a copy.
Under state law, the Tennessee Attorney General has the power to initiate ouster proceedings at any point, even without receiving a complaint.
It allows for residents to petition for an ouster by 10 citizens of the jurisdiction involved — meaning a petition from 10 or more people who live in the Fourth Judicial District could file a petition.
Court rulings and attorney general’s opinions on the ouster law make it clear that the petitions have a high threshold to reach to have Dunn removed from office.
An attorney general’s opinion from 1979 states “ an indictment is not a ground for removal under the Ouster Law.”
However, an appellate court ruling indicated “misconduct that would sustain an indictment under the common law would support a proceeding under the Ouster Law.”
Ouster is a civil proceeding, and state law gives the official in charge of the investigation authority to subpoena witnesses and indicates they cannot avoid it using their right to avoid self-incrimination but their testimony can’t be used against them.
“No person shall be excused from testifying … on the ground that such persons’ testimony may incriminate such person, but no person shall be prosecuted or punished on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which such person shall be compelled to testify, nor shall such person in prosecutions for any crime,” according to the state law.