Judge Denies Public Access To Jimmy Dunn’s Records
Submitted by Jacqueline Binns
October 25, 2026, 6:44 a.m.
SEVIERVILLE - For nearly two decades, James “Jimmy” Bruce Dunn, the elected district attorney general of the Fourth Judicial District of Tennessee, unlawfully imposed written applications, scheduling notices, and deadlines upon citizen applicants attempting to access a grand jury to provide knowledge and proof of criminal violations committed in Sevier County, Tennessee. Hundreds of citizens are believed to have been obstructed by a prosecution machine Dunn designed to discourage citizen access and threaten those who appeared with criminal prosecution if Dunn, in his own discretion, believed prosecution of the private citizen was appropriate.
According to allegations documented in litigation brought by Gatlinburg resident Erik Cooper, Dunn's office went substantially further. Prosecutors allegedly investigated citizens' accusations before their grand jury appearances, evaluated the evidence themselves, communicated their own probable cause opinions to grand jurors, and threatened prospective witnesses with criminal prosecution if they testified, including testimony Cooper brought against Dunn’s deputy district attorney general Ronald Crockett Newcomb.
Cooper contends these practices transformed a statutory avenue for citizen participation in the grand jury process into a system of prosecutorial screening and intimidation—one in which the very officials whose conduct citizens might seek to report exercised extraordinary influence over their access to grand jurors.
In July 2023, those practices suffered a significant judicial setback when then-presiding Circuit Judge Rex Henry Ogle granted Cooper's petition challenging the requirements imposed upon citizen applicants. Ogle ruled that Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-12-104 did not require citizens to submit written applications, comply with application deadlines, or schedule their appearances before a grand jury. Ogle’s April 2023 order had established that Cooper was not required to execute a waiver of immunity.
The rulings preserved the authority of grand jury panels to establish reasonable procedures, but rejected the proposition that the challenged requirements were imposed by the statute itself.
Yet the question Cooper sought to answer remained: How many other Tennessee citizens had been subjected to these requirements, discouraged from reporting criminal offenses, or prevented from presenting allegations directly to grand jurors?
To find out, Cooper, a Sevier County businessman, investigative journalist, and publisher of The Gatlinburg Free Press, submitted a June 2023 public records request seeking ten years of applications, scheduling notices, and related records maintained by Dunn's office. Cooper and The Gatlinburg Free Press, a news organization that gathers investigative information for distribution to other publishers and news outlets, filed suit in September 2023 after Dunn's office allegedly failed to respond to the request as required by the Tennessee Public Records Act.
The requested records could reveal not only how many citizens sought access to Sevier County grand juries, but also how Dunn's office handled their applications, what information prosecutors obtained before their appearances, and whether citizens were subjected to screening procedures that interfered with their statutory rights. Cooper maintains that without access to those records, the public cannot determine the full extent of the challenged practices or identify other citizens who may have been affected.
What followed next was more than three years of litigation, dozens of motions, repeated hearings, and a judicial proceeding that Cooper now describes as an extraordinary failure of the expedited public records review mandated by Tennessee law.
JUDGE THOMAS TAKES 784 DAYS TO DENY ACCESS TO THE PUBLIC RECORDS
Following Judge Ogle's retirement, Senior Judge D. Kelly Thomas, Jr., a retired Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals judge, was specially appointed to preside over the litigation on August 28, 2024.
Tennessee Code Annotated § 10-7-505(b) requires courts to immediately issue a show cause order in public records disputes and expressly dispenses with ordinary procedural deadlines in the interest of expeditious hearings.
Nevertheless, Thomas presided over the case for 784 days before entering his October 22, 2026 Final Judgment denying access to the requested records.
"Seven hundred eighty-four days. That is how long Judge Thomas presided over a public records lawsuit that Tennessee law expressly requires courts to handle expeditiously," Cooper said. "After more than two years, substantial litigation expense, repeated hearings, and extensive briefing, Thomas entered a judgment that, in our view, could have been written years ago. The extraordinary delay is indefensible, the court’s legal conclusions are deeply flawed, and the result makes a mockery of the public's statutory right to prompt judicial review."
THOMAS QUESTIONS DUNN'S SWORN AFFIDAVIT, THEN REVERSES DECISION ORDERING DUNN TO TESTIFY
During a July 9, 2026 hearing, Thomas questioned the sufficiency and potential truthfulness of sworn statements Dunn submitted to the court in an affidavit.
When Cooper challenged Dunn's assertions, Thomas acknowledged that the disputed statements "could mean that he swore falsely." When Cooper raised the possibility of perjury, Thomas responded, "That does matter."
Later in the hearing, Thomas described Dunn's sworn statements as "so general" that he could not reach the factual conclusions necessary to decide the case without further examination. Thomas then asked when Dunn could appear to answer the Court's questions.
The Court ordered Dunn to testify.
But following objections from state attorneys, who provided Dunn’s defense, and Dunn’s own request for the court’s reconsideration, Thomas reversed himself during an August 17 hearing, declaring that he had been "incorrect" to require Dunn's appearance. The Court excused Dunn from testifying, declined to receive further evidence, and subsequently entered its August 20 written order confirming that reversal.
"Judge Thomas questioned whether Dunn had sworn falsely, declared Dunn's affidavit too general to support the necessary factual findings, and directed Dunn to answer questions under oath," Cooper said. "Then, after Dunn's lawyers objected, Thomas reversed himself and closed the evidentiary record. The judge eliminated the very means of answering the questions he himself had raised—and then entered judgment without those questions being answered."
TEN DAYS LATER, DUNN WAS INDICTED ON SIX FELONY COUNTS
On August 27, 2026, just ten days after Thomas reversed his directive requiring Dunn's testimony, a Sevier County grand jury indicted Dunn on six felony counts arising from separate allegations involving Cooper's May 2023 arrest.
The indictment followed Dunn's announcement that he intended to retire before completing his elected term. Dunn subsequently attempted to rescind his retirement and remains in office while litigation concerning his continued tenure proceeds.
Dunn has pleaded not guilty and is presumed innocent. The criminal charges do not concern the public records sought in this lawsuit, nor do they establish that Dunn's affidavit was false.
Nevertheless, Cooper argues that the indictment underscores the importance of independent scrutiny of the prosecutor's exercise of governmental power.
"The public is witnessing an elected district attorney facing six felony charges while continuing to exercise the extraordinary powers of criminal prosecution in the same judicial district," Cooper said. "Meanwhile, records that could help identify citizens subjected to other challenged practices of that office remain concealed from public examination. This is precisely when judicial oversight and government transparency should be at their strongest, not their weakest. Instead, after 784 days, Judge Thomas has delivered a judgment that leaves the public without the records, without answers to the questions Judge Thomas himself raised about Dunn’s sworn statements, and without any meaningful accountability in this proceeding. Tennesseans deserve judicial accountability.”
COOPER QUESTIONS JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND ANNOUNCES APPEAL
Cooper also questioned whether Thomas took appropriate action after receiving allegations of serious prosecutorial misconduct and hearing challenges to the truthfulness of Dunn's sworn statements.
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10, Rule of Judicial Conduct 2.15, imposes duties upon judges who possess knowledge of qualifying serious attorney misconduct or receive information indicating a substantial likelihood of professional misconduct. Depending upon the information known to the judge, those duties may require reporting to disciplinary authorities or other appropriate action.
Cooper has not established whether Thomas made any disciplinary referral or took other action outside the courtroom.
"Judicial independence does not mean judicial indifference," Cooper said. "When citizens present serious allegations concerning an elected prosecutor, and a judge himself acknowledges that the prosecutor may have sworn falsely, the public deserves to know what action the judiciary took. Simply closing the evidentiary record does not resolve questions about possible professional misconduct."
Cooper described the October 21 judgment as the functional equivalent of a judicial free pass.
"In my view, Judge Thomas has given Jimmy Dunn a judicial free pass—not legal permission to violate his oath, but an outcome that protects the historical records of challenged practices from public scrutiny while leaving serious questions unanswered," Cooper said.
"That is not the accountability Tennessee citizens should expect from their courts. A judicial system that demands obedience to the law from ordinary citizens must be equally prepared to hold powerful public officials accountable to that same law."
Cooper and The Gatlinburg Free Press will appeal Thomas's judgment to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
"While we are grateful Judge Thomas finally entered a ruling, we fully intend to challenge this judgment and the rulings that produced it. We will not accept years of delay and a legally flawed decision as the final word on the public's right to examine how its elected prosecutors exercised their authority. The public deserves answers, and we intend to continue seeking them for everyone.”
Dunn continues serving today as district attorney general for the Fourth Judicial District of Tennessee.
Case: The Gatlinburg Free Press, et al. v. James Bruce Dunn, et al., Sevier County Circuit Court,Case No. 2023-CV-563-III.
Documents Referenced: Complaint and Petition for Access to Public Records and to Obtain Judicial Review of Denial of Access; Affidavit of Jimmy Dunn; Order of Final Judgment; July 9, 2026 and August 17, 2026 court transcripts.
Documents Available Here: https://tinyurl.com/4wh59jsu
