Erik Cooper Makes Statement on Dunn and Marsh Arraignment
October 1, 2026, 4:25 p.m.

Today, James “Jimmy” Bruce Dunn and William Brownlow Marsh were arraigned before the Honorable Robert E. Lee Davies in Sevier County Circuit Court. Both entered pleas of not guilty to the charges returned against them by the Sevier County Grand Jury on August 26th.

Before today’s proceeding, I filed a request asking the Court to recognize me as a crime victim in this case and to advise me of the rights afforded crime victims under the Tennessee Constitution and Tennessee law. Judge Davies granted that request, and the Clerk of Court provided me with those rights. I am grateful to the Court for recognizing my crime victim status—as a crime victim of the prosecutor and his deputy—and ensuring that I receive the protections Tennessee law affords all crime victims. I intend to exercise those rights responsibly as this case proceeds.

I also have complete trust and confidence in the special prosecution team appointed following the intervention of the Honorable Don R. Ash. They should be permitted to continue investigating and prosecuting this case according to the evidence and the law, free from political influence and without unnecessary public interference.

I do not intend to publicly discuss evidence or other matters that could compromise their continuing investigation, their preparation of this prosecution, or the Defendants' right to a fair proceeding. Mr. Dunn and Mr. Marsh have pleaded not guilty. They remain presumed innocent unless and until the State proves the charges against them beyond a reasonable doubt.

There is, however, a broader issue that I can discuss.

Most Tennesseans probably do not know that prosecutors are not the only people who can bring information concerning criminal conduct to a Grand Jury. Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-12-104 provides a statutory procedure through which a citizen possessing knowledge or proof of a public offense may seek to present that information to a Grand Jury. The Tennessee Supreme Court has described that statutory procedure as one designed to provide citizens “free access to the local Grand Jury.”

For years, my efforts to exercise that right in Sevier County were subjected to procedures that I maintained Tennessee law did not authorize. Among them were a written application requiring citizens to disclose information about the offenses they sought to present; a prosecutor-controlled deadline and scheduling process; collection of government-issued photo identification; and, in my case, a written demand that I waive constitutional rights before proceeding.

I challenged those practices rather than accepting them. Those practices have ended.

As a result of the litigation I pursued over the past several years, important barriers I suffered have fallen. The written application and prosecutor-imposed application deadline were determined by a court to be the prosecutor’s unlawful requirements under § 40-12-104. The prosecutor-controlled scheduling procedure I challenged was also determined by a court to be unlawful. The written Waiver of Constitutional Rights imposed upon me by prosecutor Ronald Crockett Newcomb, under Mr. Dunn’s direction, was equally determined by a court to be an unlawful demand. And the applicant-identification requirement I challenged is no longer being imposed upon citizens seeking access through this process.

That matters far beyond my own case.

I believe requiring a citizen to first disclose allegations to the very prosecutorial office whose conduct—or whose political allies—the citizen may seek to place before a Grand Jury fundamentally undermines the independence that citizen access is supposed to protect. The tactics intimidated free citizens and insulated criminal misconduct by the prosecutors themselves. My experience demonstrates why the General Assembly provided citizens a means of reaching a Grand Jury that does not depend entirely upon a prosecutor deciding whether their allegations deserve to be heard.

Today, citizens in Sevier County seeking to use Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-12- 104 should encounter a substantially different process from the one I encountered for many years. Citizens throughout Tennessee should treat court rulings in my lawsuits as benchmark decisions in their communities. That is meaningful progress.

The criminal charges against Mr. Dunn and Mr. Marsh must now be resolved in court, based upon admissible evidence and the law—not public opinion. I will respect that process, exercise the rights the Court recognized today, cooperate appropriately with the special prosecution team, and avoid public statements that could interfere with the team’s work.

At the same time, I will continue advocating for the right of ordinary citizens to reach their Grand Jury without unlawful barriers or intimidation.

Justice requires both things: protecting the rights of the accused and protecting the ability of citizens to seek the truth.