Cooper to Return to Sevier County Grand Jury Sept. 28
By Jacqueline Binns
September 1, 2026, 6:31 p.m.

SEVIERVILLE, TN - Less than a week after a Sevier County Grand Jury charged Fourth Judicial District Attorney General James “Jimmy” Dunn and Deputy District Attorney General William Brownlow Marsh following Erik Cooper’s August 24 citizen-initiated Grand Jury presentation, Cooper has notified the Circuit Court that he intends to return to the Grand Jury on September 28 to again seek an investigation involving Assistant District Attorney General Ronald Crockett Newcomb.

Cooper filed a formal notice August 31 stating that he intends to appear at 9:00 a.m. on September 28, 2026, and invoke Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-12-104 to present “knowledge and proof concerning alleged public offenses triable or indictable in Sevier County, Tennessee and involving Ronald Crockett Newcomb.”

At the same time, Cooper filed a 16-page motion asking Senior Judge Don R. Ash to clarify the procedure that will govern that appearance -- specifically, whether Newcomb, as the person whose conduct Cooper seeks to have investigated, may appear and give competing testimony before the preliminary three-member Grand Jury Panel that determines whether Cooper will be permitted to take his allegations to the full Grand Jury.

The motion follows an unusual sequence of events during Cooper’s August 24 Grand Jury appearance.


Two Grand Jury Matters, Two Different Outcomes

On August 24, Cooper invoked § 40-12-104 concerning separate allegations involving Dunn and Marsh and allegations involving Newcomb.

Under the Tennessee statute, a citizen claiming knowledge or proof of an indictable offense first appears before a three-member Panel consisting of the Grand Jury foreperson and two Grand Jurors designated by the citizen. The Panel does not determine guilt or innocence. Its statutory function is to determine whether the citizen's knowledge “warrants investigation by the grand jury.”

Cooper’s Dunn/Marsh matter cleared that preliminary process and proceeded to the full Sevier County Grand Jury. Two days later, on August 26, the Grand Jury returned a Presentment charging Dunn and Marsh in connection with Cooper's May 1, 2023 arrest. Both men were subsequently arrested and booked.

Cooper’s Newcomb matter never reached the full Grand Jury.

Before the August 24 proceedings, Newcomb filed a written request with the Circuit Court asking to “appear and testify” before the August 24 Sevier County Grand Jury “or any subsequent Grand Jury” concerning Cooper’s allegations.

Newcomb’s written Request sought permission to appear before the Grand Jury; it did not expressly request permission to appear before Cooper’s preliminary three-member Panel.

Judge Ash subsequently entered an Order permitting Newcomb to testify not merely before the Grand Jury, but “in front of the same panel” that was charged with deciding whether Cooper’s knowledge warranted a Grand Jury investigation. Newcomb appeared before that Panel. The Panel subsequently declined to authorize Cooper’s Newcomb allegations to proceed to the full Grand Jury.

Cooper contends that allowing the subject of his allegations to personally participate at that preliminary stage improperly transformed the citizen-access proceeding into an adversarial hearing before the Grand Jury was ever permitted to investigate.


Newcomb Had Sought Appointment to Replace Dunn

At the time of Cooper’s August 24 Grand Jury appearance, Newcomb was also an applicant seeking appointment by Governor Bill Lee to become District Attorney General for Tennessee’s Fourth Judicial District following Dunn’s announced retirement.

Dunn, who was reelected to an eight-year term in 2022, announced in July that he would retire effective August 31, 2026. His term otherwise extends through 2030. The anticipated vacancy placed responsibility on Governor Lee to temporarily appoint a successor until voters could fill the vacancy at the next qualifying biennial election. Newcomb was among the applicants seeking that appointment.

That appointment process came to an abrupt end on August 31.

Four days after Dunn and Marsh were arrested on felony charges arising from the Grand Jury Presentment initiated by Cooper, Dunn withdrew his planned retirement and informed Governor Lee that he would remain in office. The Governor’s office confirmed Dunn’s decision, stating: “General Dunn informed our office that he no longer intends to retire. As a result, there is no vacancy for the Governor to fill.”

Dunn’s decision eliminated the anticipated vacancy and, with it, Governor Lee’s immediate ability to appoint Newcomb or another applicant as temporary District Attorney General pending the next qualifying biennial election. Dunn now remains the elected District Attorney General while the criminal case against him proceeds.

The development adds another layer to Cooper’s planned September 28 appearance: Newcomb, who sought appointment to succeed Dunn, will again be the subject of allegations Cooper intends to ask a Sevier County Grand Jury to investigate, while Dunn remains in the office Newcomb had sought.


Cooper Asks Court to Draw a Line Between the “Panel” and the “Grand Jury”

Cooper’s new motion emphasizes a distinction he says is critical under Tennessee law: the three-member Panel is not the Grand Jury investigation.

“The question assigned to the Panel is whether the citizen possesses knowledge warranting investigation by the Grand Jury,” Cooper states in the filing. The motion argues that the Panel does not decide whether the proposed accused committed an offense, whether probable cause exists, or whether the citizen's allegations ultimately outweigh competing evidence.

Cooper argues that allowing the proposed accused to present competing testimony at that stage can effectively place the investigation before the investigation.

According to the motion, allowing such participation risks creating a process in which a citizen presents evidence of an alleged offense, the proposed accused responds, and the three-member Panel weighs those competing presentations before deciding whether the full Grand Jury will ever be allowed to investigate.

That distinction has significant consequences. Cooper's motion cites In re Death of Reed, in which the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals explained that after a Panel rejected a citizen’s application, the citizen’s “right ... to be heard by a grand jury was terminated.”


Tennessee Law Designed to Give Citizens “Free Access” to Grand Jury

Cooper’s filing also points to the stated purpose behind Tennessee’s citizen Grand Jury statutes.

The Advisory Commission Comment to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 6 describes Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 40-12-104 through -107 as providing a procedure designed to give citizens “free access to the local grand jury.”

Cooper argues that allowing the person whose conduct the citizen seeks to have investigated to intervene and give competing testimony before the citizen has cleared the preliminary Panel risks turning that access mechanism into an adversarial barrier.

Section 40-12-104 expressly provides that the Panel may consult the district attorney general or the court for guidance. Cooper’s motion argues that the statute does not similarly grant the proposed accused party status, a right to intervene, or an opportunity to oppose the citizen’s application before the Panel decides whether an investigation is warranted.


Cooper Does Not Seek to Prevent Newcomb from Testifying Before Grand Jury

The motion expressly states that Cooper is not asking Judge Ash to prevent Newcomb from testifying before the full Grand Jury.

Instead, Cooper asks the Court to preserve what he contends is the statutory sequence. First, the three-member Panel determines whether Cooper possesses knowledge warranting investigation. If the answer is yes, the matter proceeds to the full Grand Jury. The Grand Jury may then exercise its independent authority to obtain witnesses and evidence -- including testimony from Newcomb -- during its investigation. “The distinction is one of timing and statutory function, not suppression of Mr. Newcomb's testimony,” Cooper’s motion states.


Court Asked to Decide Before September 28

Cooper is asking Judge Ash to resolve the issue before the next Sevier County Grand Jury convenes on September 28. Specifically, Cooper asks the Court to revise the portion of its August 24 Order permitting Newcomb to testify before Cooper’s three-member Panel and clarify that Newcomb may not, merely because he is the subject of Cooper’s allegations or upon his own request, participate in the Panel proceeding to oppose or rebut Cooper before the Panel makes its threshold determination.

Cooper’s requested order would expressly preserve the full Grand Jury’s authority to hear Newcomb if Cooper first clears the preliminary Panel.

Alternatively, Cooper asks Judge Ash that if the Court concludes Tennessee law does permit the proposed accused to make a competing presentation before the citizen’s screening Panel, the Court identify the legal authority permitting it and establish the permissible scope and procedure for that participation.

Cooper says the ruling is needed before September 28 so that he, Newcomb, the prosecutors appointed to the matter, the Circuit Court Clerk, and members of the statutory Panel know their respective roles before the proceeding begins.


September 28 Appearance

Cooper’s notice asks that a Grand Jury foreperson pro tempore selected from the September 28 Grand Jury serve on the three-member Panel, consistent with the procedure Judge Ash established for Cooper’s August 24 appearance.

Cooper’s filing does not ask the Court to determine whether Newcomb committed any criminal offense. Nor does the pending motion ask the Court to order the Grand Jury to investigate or indict Newcomb. Instead, the immediate question presented to Judge Ash is narrower: when a Tennessee citizen invokes the statutory procedure designed to provide access to the Grand Jury, may the person the citizen seeks to have investigated appear and oppose that citizen before the preliminary Panel decides whether the Grand Jury gets to hear the matter at all?

Cooper intends to return on September 28 and again invoke Tennessee's citizen Grand Jury access law. If the three-member Panel determines that his knowledge warrants investigation, Cooper intends to place his evidence concerning Newcomb before the full Sevier County Grand Jury—just as he did in the separate proceeding that resulted in the criminal charges now pending against Dunn and Marsh.

Case:  In Re Sevier County Grand Jury / Erik Cooper, Petitioner to Appear Before the Sevier County Grand Jury, Sevier County Circuit Court, Fourth Judicial District of Tennessee, Case No. 2026-CV-517-I

Court Documents:  Case No. 2026-CV-517-I:  Petition for Judicial Interpretation and Declaratory Relief; Newcomb's Request to Appear Before Grand Jury; Order on Petition Re Grand Jury Proceedings (August 24, 2026); Petitioner’s Motion to Revise Order; Petitioner’s Notice of Intent to Appear on September 28, 2026.

Documents Available Here:  https://tinyurl.com/3vwtuxp6