In a unanimous decision today, the Kansas Supreme Court reversed the Kansas Court of Appeals and affirmed a Wyandotte County District Court order dismissing a grand jury indictment filed against Rodney L. Turner.
Turner, who was a lawyer who did consulting work for the Board of Public Utilities, was indicted by a grand jury that was called from a petition circulated by T.J. Reardon, a Wyandotte County resident.
Turner was questioned about the work he had performed for BPU and the invoices that were submitted in the early 2000s, and he invoked his constitutional right against self-incrimination.
“In this case, a Kansas Bureau of Investigation agent acting as chief investigator for the grand jury and a witness called by the prosecutor violated the constitutional and statutory rights against self-incrimination of another grand jury witness who had unequivocally and successfully invoked his rights against self-incrimination when the agent testified that the grand jury should draw an adverse inference from the witness’ silence,” the Supreme Court’s opinion stated.
The Supreme Court also stated: “Kansas statutes governing grand jury proceedings contemplate the due process mandate that an indictment should issue only where it is based on legal evidence, rather than suspicion or conjecture.”
The Supreme Court continued: “Because the record before us establishes grave doubt that the grand jury’s decision to indict was free from the substantial influence of the abuses of process and constitutional violations caused by the state’s agents during the grand jury proceedings, we reverse the Court of Appeals and affirm the district court’s dismissal of the indictment.”
The case had ties to politicians and political groups. During the grand jury proceedings, a KBI agent tried to tie this case to an unsolved murder case that occurred in the 1980s, when Chuck Thompson, a lawyer who was the Wyandotte County Democratic Party chairman, was shot and killed near a restaurant near 50th and State Avenue.
The grand jury also had indicted BPU’s attorney Marc Conklin, who later committed suicide.
The Supreme Court noted that while Turner did not disclose the itemization of his work, the BPU’s general manager at the time stated that his invoices were not out of line for the work that was performed.
The Supreme Court found three areas where there were errors in the grand jury proceedings, according to court documents. These three included: “(1) The DA violated Turner’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by asking him numerous questions in front of the grand jury which required him to invoke the privilege over 100 times; (2) the state’s chief investigator for the grand jury impermissibly commented on Turner’s silence in violation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination; and (3) the state-sponsored testimony of the chief investigator violated Turner’s due process rights by introducing irrelevant and unnecessary evidence about an unrelated murder case and suggesting that the grand jury should indict on the present case to help solve the prior murder case.”
The Supreme Court stated the burden of proof was not on Turner to prove the errors of the state’s argument. It stated that constitutional violations could not be deemed harmless under a test that was applied to the case. The court stated that the errors introduced by the KBI agent were “pervasive” in the grand jury proceedings, not isolated.
“The only evidence supporting the indictment was Turner’s unitemized bills, testimony from certain individuals who were unaware of the specific nature of work Turner did for BPU, and witnesses who refused to breach the attorney/client privilege in order to answer the grand jury’s questions about what work was performed,” the Supreme Court opinion stated.
In summing up, the Supreme Court stated: “Contrary to the Court of Appeals’ belief, such equivocal nonproof testimony does not cure or trump the egregious errors visited upon these proceedings that polluted the process and denied fundamental fairness.”
To view the Supreme Court’s decision, visit http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/opinions/SupCt/2014/20140905/102478.pdf.
