I Hope This Doesn't Land Me In Jail

I Hope This Doesn't Land Me In Jail

  3:34 AM    Unknown

---

I Hope This Doesn't Land Me in Jail

How can you keep secrets you do not know?

I feel like I've been charged with that impossible task. I'm worried I may be charged with other things, too.

As many of you know, I am a member of the current Irwin County Grand Jury, but Superior Court Chief Judge Bill Reinhardt excused me from participating in the presentments and deliberations about the Ryan Alexander Duke case because of the extensive coverage I have devoted to the disappearance and death of Tara Grinstead, whom Duke is accused of killing, in both The Ocilla Star and this blog. I wrote about the situation in my blog posts "If I Was on the Grand Jury" and "The Grand Jury Decisions."

Then, a week ago I received a letter from the office of District Attorney Paul Bowden. It read:

"Dear Mr. Vassey,
Circumstances following the April 12 meeting of the Grand Jury require inquiry into the means by which certain information presented to the grand jury was released publicly. We would like to meet with you prior to the next scheduled meeting of the Grand Jury. In that regard, I have scheduled time to meet at the Irwin County Courthouse at 9 o'clock on May 2, 2017, in order to accomplish this inquiry. If you are unable to meet with us at that time, please notify my office at (a phone number). Please note that this is not a judicial recall of the Grand Jury.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Paul Bowden."

This letter immediately concerned me because I wondered if I was the only one to receive such a letter. Was I being singled out? Common sense told me that it almost had to be related to the Ryan Duke case, but why would Bowden call me to meet with him considering that I was not part of the Grand Jury's handling of the Duke case?

In my previous blog entry, "The Stories of Ryan and Bo?," I wrote about information that supposedly originated with a member of the Grand Jury, although I do not know who the grand juror may have been and I don't even know if the information truly came from a grand juror. Perhaps paranoidly, I wondered if I was being called to meet with Bowden in some sort of attempt to learn my source.

Then, I arrived at the courthouse May 2 and saw a crowd of people waiting in the courtroom. The entire Grand Jury, or nearly so, was in attendance, although no judge was presiding, as this was, as the letter said, no judicial recall of the Grand Jury. The secrecy oath we took as grand jurors should not apply to what happened May 2, but I'm a little confused about that oath, as I'll explain.

The district attorney and his office's investigator were joined by at least four agents from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. The GBI agents began pulling grand jurors off one-by-one for individual interviews. Obviously, based on the letter, they were investigating a supposed leak or leaks from the Grand Jury.

I wondered to myself if those GBI agents time might be better spent solving crimes in which victims were actually harmed beyond a man alleged to have committed murder who may or not have even been harmed by any possible Grand Jury leak. And if the evidence presented on the Up and Vanished podcast about Bo Dukes is to be believed, these were some of the same agencies apparently willing to cut an immunity deal with a convicted felon who was alleged to have committed the inhuman act of destroying a person's body, but they seemed to be prepared to arrest an ordinary citizen who committed the very human act of sharing a secret.

I mean, did they not expect this? Small towns are gossipy anyway, so how could you expect about 20 people to stay silent about a topic with such intense public interest. Personally, I wouldn't have shared what happened in that Grand Jury room because I would have taken the duty seriously, I'm afraid to go to jail, and I've become well practiced in keeping secrets the past few months, but people are people, and chances are, one or more of them have talked to someone, whether they are the source of any supposed leaks or not.

So my turn came and I was called into a room to speak with a GBI agent. I was unfamiliar with the agent, and he seemed to be unfamiliar with me. He seemed surprised that I was not part of the Grand Jury deliberations about the Ryan Duke case. His reaction made me at least doubtful about my most paranoid theories about the DA and the GBI targeting me. It seemed that I was only called in because all the members of the Grand Jury were called in.

He had a prepared script to follow to ask me questions, and he asked me about two Up and Vanished discussion board posters that I was unsure if I was familiar with at the time. I later went back and looked for their posts, and I had encountered one of the names and even inquired about him or her. With the other name, I had probably read through some of his or her posts, but I don't know if I had ever really paid attention to his name.

I see a lot of names on that board. I check it nearly every day and usually multiple times.

I don't know if they were actual Grand Jury leaks, and one of them claimed that his or her information did not come from the Grand Jury, from what I read. In fact, I had previously personally investigated whether the information one of them shared was a Grand Jury leak and decided there was nothing to it and dismissed it. What I read that they posted was nothing I had not read from a non-Grand Jury source as far back as 9 weeks ago, but there's no way to know if I saw everything the alleged leakers posted.

I was surprised that the agent did not ask about my source who claimed to have information that originated with the Grand Jury. The agent seemed to not even be aware that I had written about a supposed Grand Jury leak.

When he neared the end of his script, I was probably free and clear, but I've got this bad habit of being honest.

And the last question was whether I had any information that might be pertinent to the investigation, so I told him about reporting about a supposed Grand Jury leak.

I had seen someone post on the Up and Vanished board about information that supposedly came from the Grand Jury, and I later spoke to them. This person told me that someone told them information that supposedly originated from a grand juror. As to whether it actually did, I cannot know, and in fact there was good reason to doubt part of it. As I wrote, some of the information conflicted with other information I've learned about the case that seems to be true.

When asked, I repeatedly refused to give my source's name, and I also refused to give his or her screen name on the UAV board. I said that as a journalist I have to protect the names of my sources or else no one will trust me and I will be unable to do my job.

The agent dismissed me but asked me to wait outside, and then he called Bowden in to talk for a few minutes before summoning me back. I was already on edge, and I was a little angry to be, to my knowledge, the only one called back for a second interview, this time with the DA present.

The agent told me I should not report on anything that came from the Grand Jury. I said, truthfully, that I did not know if what I reported came from the Grand Jury. He said that I was told it came from the Grand Jury. The district attorney said the same thing, and he either said or intimated that it was a violation of my oath as a grand juror.

In the past two months, as regards this case, I have been told a lot of things. There is no way all of them are true, so being told something is no gauge of truth. And most importantly, in this instance, I cannot know if it is true because I do not know what the Grand Jury was told about Ryan Duke's case.

The Grand Jury oath of office says "You shall keep the deliberations of the Grand Jury secret unless called upon to give evidence thereof in some court of law in this state."

I was not part of the deliberations on the Ryan Duke case. I do not know what those deliberations were about. As I said in my opening statement, how can you keep secrets you do not know? Should we re-convene the Grand Jury so my fellow jurors can inform me of all the secrets I am supposed to protect?

I asked Bowden what the point was of being excused from the Grand Jury. I was well angry by that point, which may be why I don't remember him giving me a good answer or if he answered at all.

You see, the judge offered to let me off the Grand Jury because, I was told, it would be a very difficult position that I would be in, trying to report on the case as intensely as I have while also keeping the deliberations secret. The whole purpose of being allowed off the Grand Jury for that case was to prevent me from having conflict between my duties as a reporter and grand juror. That's why I accepted the offer as well.

But the judge told me that even had I remained on the Grand Jury for the Ryan Duke case, I could have reported on information I learned independent of my Grand Jury service. And the information the DA and agent said I shouldn't have reported came from public posts on an online forum and hearsay testimony given to me by someone who was not a member of the Grand Jury. Any other journalist would have been allowed to report on it without complaint.

And I firmly believe the district attorney wanted me off the Grand Jury for the Ryan Duke case. I was told he sent a copy of my "If I Was On the Grand Jury" blog post to the judge only shortly before the April 12 Grand Jury meeting, and I think it is a safe guess to presume the reason was to have me removed from the case. Now the DA is telling me I have to abide by the rules of the Grand Jury for that case even though he seems to have gotten his wish.

That's a cake and eat it too situation, and I'm the cake, and I think it violates the pretenses under which I was excused from the Grand Jury and the spirit of the Grand Jury oath if I am bound to keep deliberations I have never heard secret. That's an even more impossible situation than if I had served as a grand juror in the case while still reporting on it.

And clearly if I have my ability to gather news curtailed in this unprecedented and perhaps unique situation, it's at least a constitutional issue if not an outright violation of my First Amendment rights.

So, I'm going to continue to report. I'm scared spitless, but I reminded myself of what one of my benefactors said in a letter, one of those kind people who donated for me to buy a newer car that I still haven't bought, even though it will be coming soon if I stay out of jail. He said in his letter, "Keep 'em honest." I still owe it to people like him, to people like you, to report the truth even when I feel intimidated to stay silent.

And I am afraid. I'm afraid that a judge will try to force me to give up my source and will have to jail me for contempt because I won't give up a name. I'm afraid that something I write will be construed as a violation of my oath as a grand juror and I will be jailed. I'm afraid that something else I write, perhaps this very article, will anger the district attorney or the GBI and they will charge me for what I've already written.

I hope I'm just being paranoid. I know I can be.

But it's like I told the GBI agent when he asked me for my source's name a final time. He said that he was investigating a crime and it was serious. I knew it was serious, but although to an attorney or a law enforcement officer there might not be anything more important than the law, to me there is, such as personal integrity, not only as a journalist but as a human being. I gave someone my word I would keep his or her name confidential and unless he or she gives permission for me to share it, his or her

name will remain secret.

So when the agent asked a final time for my source's name, I told him I was sorry I couldn't help him, and I said something like, "A few weeks ago I had to make a decision whether to be a journalist or a grand juror. I chose to be a journalist, and I'm going to stick to that decision."

And even though I'm afraid there will be unjust consequences, I'm going to continue to stick to that decision now.

CASE UPDATE: The day I posted this, May 4, 2017, Ryan Duke was scheduled for arraignment at the Irwin County Courthouse. According to WMAZ-TV, his attorney requested that he be able to enter a plea without Ryan Duke appearing in court. From what I understand, this sounds like a procedure known as waiving arraignment which allows a defendant's attorney to enter a plea of not guilty without having the defendant appear in court. Although we will not know for sure until later today, it seems likely Ryan Duke will enter an initial plea of not guilty. This does not guarantee a trial will be held though, as he can change his plea at a later date if he wishes.