District Attorney General Jimmy Dunn Will Not Testify
August 18, 2026, 9:54 p.m.
SEVIERVILLE, TN - District Attorney General James “Jimmy” Dunn did not testify August 17 in a nearly three-year-old Sevier County public records lawsuit after Circuit Court Judge D. Kelly Thomas Jr. reversed his July 9 ruling requiring Dunn to take the witness stand.
Dunn had been ordered to appear August 17 to answer questions concerning an affidavit previously submitted by Dunn and relied upon by the State to justify continued nondisclosure of public records sought by Petitioners.
Instead, Thomas granted Dunn’s motion for reconsideration filed by attorneys with the Attorney General's Office representing Dunn and the Sevier County District Attorney General's Office in the dispute.
In explaining his decision from the bench Monday, Thomas acknowledged that he had “gone too far” in his July 9th ruling requiring Dunn's live testimony. Thomas questioned whether he possessed authority to require Respondents to place Dunn on the witness stand when Respondents bear the burden of proof under the Tennessee Public Records Act and are entitled to select the evidence through which they attempt to satisfy that burden.
Thomas relieved Dunn of the requirement to testify. “Is anyone surprised?” Cooper responded when asked about the ruling. Cooper represents The Gatlinburg Free Press and himself in the action. “Jimmy Dunn ignored a subpoena for his appearance a year ago, thumbed his nose at the court and the Petitioners. Now, a year later, Jimmy thumbs his nose again and escapes accountability for his unlawful conduct perpetrated on the citizens of Sevier County for nearly two decades,” said Cooper.
Though Dunn’s attorneys proposed submitting a supplemental Dunn affidavit instead of his live testimony, Thomas did not order Dunn to submit the proposed affidavit and did not schedule another evidentiary hearing.
Dunn, who announced his early retirement the day after Thomas's July 9 hearing, is scheduled to leave office August 31, approximately four years before the expiration of his elected term.
State Sought Reconsideration of Dunn Testimony Order
Respondents moved for reconsideration July 21, arguing that because they bear the burden of proof under the Tennessee Public Records Act, they are entitled to determine the evidentiary means by which they attempt to satisfy that burden. “The Court's questions can be addressed through alternative sworn proof,” Respondents told Thomas in seeking reconsideration.
Petitioners opposed the motion. They acknowledged that Respondents initially possessed the right to select their own evidence, but argued that Respondents had already exercised that right by submitting Dunn's July 14, 2025 affidavit. Petitioners argued that Thomas subsequently considered that evidence, questioned its sufficiency, and determined that additional testimony from Dunn was necessary before the Court could decide the case.
Petitioners therefore argued that the question was no longer whether Respondents could initially select their evidence, but whether the evidence Respondents selected was sufficient to carry their statutory burden of proving that continued nondisclosure of the requested records is justified.
State Proposed Supplemental Affidavit Instead of Dunn's Testimony
Respondents proposed providing additional sworn proof from Dunn as an alternative to his live testimony.
Petitioners opposed substituting a second affidavit, arguing that Dunn's existing affidavit answered narrow questions concerning creation, distribution, and retention policy while leaving unanswered materially different questions concerning Respondents' actual knowledge, receipt, possession, use, handling, and disposition of the requested records.
Petitioners also pointed to Dunn's statements during a July 25, 2023 court proceeding before then-Circuit Court Judge Rex Henry Ogle. Dunn acknowledged that the Clerk's Office had an application and, while discussing the procedures imposed upon citizens seeking grand-jury access, stated, “whether we require these little things like filling out a form to appear in front of the grand jury....” Petitioners argued that who Dunn meant by “we," what role his office played in the process, and what happened to completed applications remained unanswered factual questions.
In a consolidated reply filed minutes before Monday's hearing, Respondents continued to oppose Dunn's live testimony and argued they could either rely upon the evidence already admitted or provide additional sworn proof. The State concluded its filing by asking Thomas to reverse the July 9th testimony order and “allow Respondents to submit a supplemental affidavit addressing General Dunn's knowledge of the Court's specific questions.”
Thomas granted Respondents' motion for reconsideration and relieved Dunn of the requirement to testify. Thomas did not, however, order Respondents to file the supplemental Dunn affidavit proposed by the State.
Parties Dispute When State Closed Its Evidence
A separate dispute emerged Monday over when Respondents closed their evidence.
Thomas said he believed Respondents closed their evidence during the July 9 hearing. Attorneys representing Dunn took a different position, arguing that Respondents had actually closed their proof nearly a year earlier during the first show-cause hearing on July 15, 2025.
Petitioners disputed both dates. Petitioners argued that neither the July 15, 2025 nor July 9, 2026 hearing transcript contains a statement that Respondents rested or closed their proof. Petitioners further argued that the Court and the parties continued addressing Respondents' evidence following both hearings.
After the July 9 hearing, Thomas ordered Dunn to personally appear and testify on August 17. Respondents subsequently moved for reconsideration, Petitioners filed an opposition and supplemental brief, and Respondents filed additional briefing Monday morning concerning the evidence upon which the Court should rely and expressly requesting permission to submit a supplemental Dunn affidavit.
Petitioners therefore argued that, if Respondents' evidence was closed, it could not have closed before Monday's third show-cause hearing.
The timing is significant because Thomas indicated that he intends to decide whether Respondents carried their statutory burden based upon the evidentiary record he believes Respondents closed July 9. Petitioners emphasized that additional pleadings were filed after July 9 and argued that those filings remain before the Court and must be considered before a final decision is entered.
July 9 Order Reversed
Monday's decision reversed Thomas's July 9th ruling requiring Dunn to testify.
During the July 9 hearing, Thomas extensively questioned the contents of Dunn's affidavit and the evidence Respondents relied upon to justify withholding the requested records. Petitioners sought to examine Dunn concerning paragraphs 3 through 8 of his affidavit and matters they contend Dunn omitted from it.
Thomas recognized during that hearing that Petitioners sought to “call General Dunn and cross-examine him about this affidavit.” Petitioners maintain that Thomas's July 9 ruling reflected his determination that the existing evidentiary record was insufficient to adjudicate the Petition and that Dunn's testimony was therefore req
On Monday, however — the day Dunn had been scheduled to testify—Thomas reconsidered his decision and relieved Dunn of the requirement to take the witness stand.
Nearly Three-Year Public Records Case Now Awaits Decision
The lawsuit, The Gatlinburg Free Press and Erik Cooper v. James Bruce Dunn, No. 2023-CV-563-III, was filed in September 2023. Under Tenn. Code Ann. § 10-7-505(c), the governmental entity opposing disclosure bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that nondisclosure is justified. The Tennessee Public Records Act also directs that a show-cause hearing in a public-records action be held “immediately.”
Nearly three years after the lawsuit was filed, however, the disputed records still have not been provided to Petitioners. The records concern procedures formerly imposed upon citizens seeking to present evidence of alleged criminal offenses to Sevier County grand jury panels under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-12-104. Those procedures included a written application and scheduling requirements. In July 2023, then-Circuit Court Judge Rex Henry Ogle ruled those requirements unlawful, and the practices subsequently ended.
Petitioners seek the records, in part, to determine how many other citizens were subjected to the procedures before Judge Ogle's 2023 ruling ended the practices. Respondents maintain that the requested records constitute protected grand jury materials and are exempt from disclosure under the Tennessee Public Records Act.
“The State told the Court its unanswered questions could be addressed through additional sworn proof from Dunn,” Cooper said. “Today the Court excused Dunn from testifying, but no supplemental affidavit was ordered. The questions that led the Court to order Dunn's testimony remain unanswered, so we have learned nothing.”
Thomas indicated Monday that he intends to decide the nearly three-year-old case without hearing Dunn's live testimony. No date was announced for the Court's decision.
Case: The Gatlinburg Free Press and Erik Cooper v. James Bruce Dunn, et al., Case No. 2023-CV-563-III.
Documents Available Here: https://tinyurl.com/kzms7usn
