Sep 29, 2020

Transcript: Grand Juror in Breonna Taylor Case Calls for Release of Proceeding Records, Transcripts Press Conference

Transcript: Grand Juror in Breonna Taylor Case Calls for Release of Proceeding Records, Transcripts Press Conference
RevBlogTranscriptsTranscript: Grand Juror in Breonna Taylor Case Calls for Release of Proceeding Records, Transcripts Press Conference

Kevin Glogower, an attorney for a grand jury member in the Breonna Taylor case, held a press conference on September 29. The grand jury member called on Attorney General Daniel Cameron to release all of the records and transcripts from the grand jury proceeding. Read the transcript of the briefing here.

Transcribe Your Own Content

Try Rev and save time transcribing, captioning, and subtitling.

Kevin Glogower: (03:56)
Good morning, everybody. First and foremost, let me thank you all for being here. Thank you all for your continued service to the community at large. Asking all the good questions, trying to help everybody find the right answers. Today, I have my legal team here with me. My name in case you don’t know is Kevin Glogower. And as a group, we represent anonymous grand juror in the Breonna Taylor case. To my left, this is John Britton, to my right, Eric Webber, Matthew Farrah. This is an issue that is about accountability, it’s about public trust and it’s about transparency.

Kevin Glogower: (04:41)
The grand juror that we represent felt compelled to take some sort of an action based upon the indictment that was rendered and the subsequent press conference and messages from the Attorney General’s office, about how everything played out. At this time, we filed a motion late yesterday to release any recordings, transcripts, reports, et cetera, of the grand jury. As you all well know, judge Ann Bailey Smith had the arraignment for detective Hankison ordered exactly that for the discovery process, and that’s something we can discuss. If you all ask a question and I’ll happily address it. But the other part of our motion also was to get a declaration of rights for our client, which would also apply to any other grand juror that was a part of this process.

Kevin Glogower: (05:37)
Specifically, we wanted to know from the court system, if a grand juror would have the right to speak freely, without fear of prosecution, persecution, condemnation, torment, et cetera, about their experience as a grand juror in this proceeding. Again, our client felt compelled to take action, but before our client can discuss these things freely, they needed to know the rights and duties as deemed by the court. This is not a situation or a case where anyone should be acting without an abundance of caution and exploring all their options appropriately before they start speaking freely to the press. That includes all interested parties. The grand juror wisely sought some guidance and decided ultimately to file the motion. I cannot really speak to anything that’s privileged, obviously that was discussed. But we’re awaiting the ruling. We are aware of the attorney general statement made late yesterday, which I will finish up my opening remarks stating I think it was a well-worded two paragraph public statement that says they will follow Judge Ann Bailey Smith’s court order. I’m not sure it really says much more than that. But since you all are helping everyone here in Louisville to understand what’s been going on with this case, I will gladly answer any questions that I can and I’ll open it up for that to happen. Yes, sir. Mr. Wilson?

Mr. Wilson: (07:23)
What in particular was your client aggrieved by? Could you say what their concerns were?

Kevin Glogower: (07:32)
The primary concern that our client has is if you watched the press conference after the reading of the indictment, the Attorney General laid a lot of responsibility at the grand jurors feet. If you look at the statement that the Attorney General’s office released yesterday, they attempted to walk that back. And I think the concerns as we noted in our motion of the grand jury probably got their attention. And hopefully that’s going to help facilitate a little more transparency in how things occurred.

Speaker 1: (08:09)
Does your client believe that the attorney general lied during that press conference?

Kevin Glogower: (08:15)
My client wants to make sure the truth gets out. My client wants to make sure that anything that happened in there becomes something of public knowledge to the extent it’s legally allowed to.

Speaker 2: (08:25)
Cameron said he’s going to release the recordings. What will the recordings reveal that we didn’t already know?

Kevin Glogower: (08:33)
A couple things with that one. He said he’s going to release the recordings because he’s now ordered to publicly file it as discovery and detective Hankison’s criminal action. So that’s not exactly the same, it’s just a blanket release in my opinion, but it will have access to the public, the press, et cetera, so get it. What I would expect you will hear is only testimony that was provided, whether it had been through audio or video. I cannot tell you if it was a video recording or simply audio. Generally speaking in the Commonwealth of Kentucky and in Jefferson County specifically, the grand jury proceeding only records the opening statement of sorts of what it’s about. A witnesses then called and sworn, they give limited testimony, very short in general. And at that point they go off the record, stop the recording. The prosecuting body, whether it be the Commonwealth attorney or an attorney general would make a recommendation at that point or choose not to and tell the grand jurors they’re not making a recommendation. And they deliberate privately, and then they return their decision. So to answer your question, the expectation is it’s going to be something similar to that, but on a more lengthy scale than what we would typically see.

Speaker 3: (09:55)
What could you tell us about who … more about this grand juror without identifying them? It finally makes it clear that it’s a male, but age, race, and how soon after the grand jury proceeding, did he contact your legal team for representation in this case?

Kevin Glogower: (10:14)
Well, I can’t give you any specifics about our client, because at this time they want to remain anonymous or as anonymous as possible. We’re aware that people are looking around and asking questions. And I appreciate the question, I just can’t answer it. And I think the second part of your question again?

Speaker 3: (10:28)
How soon?

Kevin Glogower: (10:29)
How soon did they contact?

Speaker 3: (10:30)
That same day, was it the next day?

Kevin Glogower: (10:32)
It was Friday afternoon. So two days after the press conference in the indictment. And I think the only lag there was just trying to wrestle through what they had seen reported and then released at the press conference and figuring out where they go from there. [crosstalk 00:10:51] Hold on, hold on. She was trying to ask something.

Speaker 4: (10:53)
How unprecedented is this request and when the grand juror reached out to you, what was their state of mind?

Kevin Glogower: (11:00)
As far as how unprecedented is the request? I don’t know. I can tell you in 15 years of practice, I’ve personally never seen it, but I only practice pretty much in Louisville, Kentucky. Whether or not something’s happened anywhere else, I couldn’t tell you. The research that we did prior to filing is so narrow in scope, but I did not really find anything similar where a grand juror was requesting some sort of declaration of their rights.

Kevin Glogower: (11:27)
The state of mind, I think is what you asked me when the initial contact. I think the best way to state that in that conversation was more a curiosity of where they fit in and what abilities do they have to participate in the conversation on a grander scale? Because grand jurors, what we hope is that they take their service very, very seriously, and that they look at everything that’s brought to them and make their best decision collectively with the other grand jurors. I will tell you, it’s my opinion, our client did exactly that. But after everything got released, certainly not everything, but you know what I’m saying. They wanted to know what ability do they have to participate in that conversation to help kind of illuminate the entire process.

Speaker 4: (12:20)
[inaudible 00:12:20] the entire process, was it correctly presented by the attorney general?

Kevin Glogower: (12:24)
I think they were aware. And I think you would probably agree if I asked you that there were certain questions that were left unanswered.

Speaker 5: (12:31)
When do you expect the judge to rule on whether your client can speak freely?

Kevin Glogower: (12:37)
I don’t know. A declaration of rights as an interesting action, especially when it’s in concert with a grand jury proceeding. Generally it happens faster than a civil lawsuit. So, best guess, maybe in a couple of weeks, but it depends on what the actual responses are. If you all looked at the pleading, we noticed every counsel we could find for an interested party, they would all have a right to respond, in my opinion-

Kevin Glogower: (13:03)
… an interested party. They would all have a right to respond in my opinion, if they so chose, and that could affect the timeline.

Mr. Wilson: (13:12)
Is there anything specific that was said or left unsaid that the grand jurors wants revealed? Can you tell us that.

Kevin Glogower: (13:16)
I can’t tell you that because that’s a privileged conversation that was held with our client, but I can tell you that, as we stated in our opening, that it’s the accountability and the sense of public trust to make sure that everything that can get out there does. There was some concern that maybe it wasn’t, but again, as I was saying over here, it was trying to figure out what rights do you have and what abilities do you have to help that process?

Kevin Glogower: (13:42)
Yes. I know you’ve been trying to ask-

Female: (13:44)
[crosstalk 00:13:44] mentioned that [inaudible 00:13:46] the FBI investigation at risk and impact the jurors in that case. Do you feel like that could be impacted by this being released or is that something separate?

Kevin Glogower: (13:56)
Well, I don’t know, because I haven’t seen all of anybody’s investigation. But what I can tell you is this. When a grand jury in the Commonwealth of Kentucky indicts an individual and their case matriculates to the circuit court system, they have an absolute right to discovery, which is to see anything and everything that is against them. Detective Hankison has that right. His lawyer will see every bit of whatever the Attorney General presented and whatever they have in their file. So as far as it compromising an additional investigation from federal authorities, I don’t know. If the federal authorities are looking into something that wouldn’t be encompassed in that discovery, I don’t really understand how it would impact it. But without full knowledge, I couldn’t tell you if I think it would. Yes, Ma’am?

Female: (14:38)
Cameron said last week that he’d walked them through all the ways of possible charges. So is that true based on your conversation with your client or did you just focus on [inaudible 00:14:49]?

Kevin Glogower: (14:48)
Well, again, I can’t really tell you what I discussed with my client as my client has an absolute privilege in their discussions with us. [crosstalk 00:14:56] Hold on, hold on, hold on. I’m sorry. Anyway, the walking them through the six different homicide charges, I don’t know if that happened. I can’t tell you if that happened. What I can tell you is with this release that was put out last night by the Attorney General’s office, they’re now acknowledging that they only recommended the wanton endangerment charges towards Detective Hankison. What they’re not telling you in that release, which is still a question, is what was actually presented to them, if anything? What were those charges? Who were the defendants or potential defendants? And then what was the recommendation if any? Yes, sir. I’m sorry.

Mr. Wilson: (15:35)
You hit what I was trying to get at last night in your statement-

Kevin Glogower: (15:36)
Well, good for me.

Mr. Wilson: (15:39)
You did say you recommended a wanton endangerment charge. So does that mean client was frustrated that another recommendation was made or that you didn’t present the evidence for the more serious charge?

Kevin Glogower: (15:53)
And again, my client’s concerns is making sure that there’s the appropriate information for the public as a whole to see what’s going on to make their own decisions on what happened. I think the important note to your question and hers is what we know now by their statement is there was a recommendation. We still don’t know what charges, if any, were presented outside of that recommendation.

Kevin Glogower: (16:15)
And I think it’s important for you all to know, as we said before, generally in a typical case, the prosecuting body would present charges to the grand jurors, then put on testimony, then make an off the record recommendation. We don’t know that that’s what happened here because we’re not getting those answers. We’re not getting the level of accountability that the public deserves as far as what was actually presented. [inaudible 00:16:45] statements from the original press conference that the Attorney General held where they stated certain decisions that were made, but they have yet to answer what was actually presented as far as the charges and the individuals they were directed to. And I think that is important for the public to know. And I think my client feels strongly the same. Yes, ma’am?

Female: (17:04)
Is there a concern that if these filings are released, it could set a concerning … Is there a concern that if these filings are released, it could set a precedent for future grand juries where grand jurors won’t be able to trust that their proceedings remain private as they are meant to?

Kevin Glogower: (17:22)
Well, first what I’ll say in response to that is I think it would be more dangerous to set a precedent to not disclose everything to the public that you’re allowed to. Now, the more technical answer to your question is there’s a very narrow and short rule that applies here. It’s RCR 5.24, subsection one, if you all want to look it up on your own, that states the grand jury secrecy. And what it does stay in the rule is that anybody who’s in the room during the proceedings is sworn to secrecy with only two exceptions in writing, one being that the court at any time at their discretion can order the release of those proceedings. That’s happened. The other exception within the rule is, again, the accused has a right to that information. And at that point, if you read the rule, it also states that the accused through counsel or presumably pro se can divulge certain information as a part of their own investigation or any subsequent hearings or trial on that action.

Kevin Glogower: (18:23)
So the message that gets out there right now that these are secret and they’re never to be talked about is inaccurate. There are ways that it comes out. This was going to get to counsel for Detective Hankison at some point, whether it’s noon, Wednesday, next week or whenever. And what they do with it at that point, we don’t know. But again, I think the dangerous precedent to set is more of a chilling effect of not letting the public in on what’s happening and trying to distort that level of secrecy to the extent that you’re, at least by appearance, not putting all of the truth out there. I think you’re trying to ask one over there.

Mr. Wilson: (19:05)
Did you say anything about the [inaudible 00:19:07] charges against the other two officers involved in this case?

Kevin Glogower: (19:10)
And again, I can’t really tell you anything about our discussions. It’s more an issue of trying to see how you fit into the conversation and getting the information out there that you’re asking because the public has a right to know. [crosstalk 00:19:21].

Mr. Wilson: (19:23)
The New York Times quoted you saying that your client was aggrieved that they couldn’t consider charges against Mattingly and Cosgrove.

Kevin Glogower: (19:32)
Was that in an actual quotation mark? Because that’s not accurate. I didn’t say that, but what I can tell you is, again, I think my client has agreed to use that term that what was presented is not being publicly disclosed. I think that’s a more fair assessment of what-

Mr. Wilson: (19:49)
[crosstalk 00:19:49] a specific concern. Without saying what your client said is that accurate-

Kevin Glogower: (19:56)
The concern is truth and transparency. That’s the best thing I can tell you right now. Truth and transparency.

Mr. Wilson: (20:02)
Did your client say that there was charges presented against Mattingly and Cosgrove?

Kevin Glogower: (20:08)
And I’m sorry. I cannot tell you what my client told me in confidence.

Female: (20:11)
How was your client-

Kevin Glogower: (20:13)
Hold on. He’s been trying, I’m sorry. Yes, sir?

Mr. Wilson: (20:15)
Thank you. Was there a key piece of evidence that was not presented that should have been presented?

Kevin Glogower: (20:19)
That’s an excellent question. You should probably ask the Attorney General. And I’m not trying to be flippant, but that’s part of what we’re here for. These questions are not being answered right now. What we’re getting from the Attorney General’s office two fold at this point is that they presented everything. I would submit to you based on their own statements they didn’t do that. They were asked pointedly by somebody who may be in the room why they made such a distinction between one witness regarding the knock and announce issue versus multiple other witnesses that said something different. These are the things that the public should probably know.

Mr. Wilson: (20:55)
And is that what your client asked or told you? Did your client make any sort of-

Kevin Glogower: (20:59)
I can’t tell you any discussions related to that that I have with my client. What I’m saying is if you look at the two different statements from the Attorney General’s office, they’re telling you that they haven’t told you everything and they’re indicating that they may not have actually presented what I would say is all the evidence. But we’re not going to know that until we hear the proceedings, until, if possible, the court agrees with our position and allows the grand jurors to discuss freely what happened, what was presented, et cetera. And then obviously down the road, at some point, there may be a trial, whether it be on a civil action, the criminal action against Detective Hankison or any federal investigation that’s ongoing will hopefully kind of crack open some more information as well.

Mr. Wilson: (21:42)
What’s the next step here? Is this going to become public? So Cameron seems to think that he has no issues with releasing it based on his statement last night, [inaudible 00:21:54] put out a statement. He also said he didn’t see a problem with the grand juror speaking. So what’s the next step here for you? Because you can’t really talk about wat your client is saying.

Kevin Glogower: (22:09)
Well, hopefully the next step is that we get a ruling from the court that my client and fellow grand jurors can talk, but I think what you would-

Mr. Wilson: (22:18)
You want the judge to [inaudible 00:22:20] this. You’re not going to take-

Kevin Glogower: (22:21)
Let me take it this way, if that’s okay.

Mr. Wilson: (22:23)
Yeah. Sure.

Kevin Glogower: (22:23)
May address the press release itself. The press release from last night, I’ve read over it a few times because I figured you all were going to want to talk about it. And it’s important to our action. The first paragraph is almost exclusively about the court order that was issued yesterday by Judge Ann Bailey Smith, an arraignment of Detective Hankison. Read that paragraph however you want, always things are subject to interpretation, but they’re admitting, if you want to use that phrase, that they’re going to comply with the court order. So what I think that tells everyone is they’re not going to file a writ to take it to some higher court to address the issue of disclosure within discovery. It’s an entirely different rule.

Kevin Glogower: (23:09)
So I think that portion of the statement last night is solely to say, “We’re not going to take that to another judge. We’re going to comply with the order and we will put it in the court file as discovery,” which other than the fact that it’s going to be publicly in the court file is the normal course of action for the disclosure of those recordings.

Kevin Glogower: (23:29)
The part that directly addressed our motion, if I recall word for word, and I won’t, but I’ll paraphrase as best I can, they have no concerns with grand jurors talking about the proceedings. Okay? No concerns talking about the proceedings. No concerns doesn’t necessarily mean when you hear something you don’t like, you’re not going to change your mind. But more importantly, talking about the proceedings in the same statement where you’re saying, “I agree to the release of the proceedings as ordered by the court,” potentially, and we believe, narrows it to whatever’s recorded. And if you look at our motion, we very specifically stated that there should be an ability for the grand jurors to talk about the things that were not recorded that are relevant to the accountability and the public trust that we’re all seeking here. Because if no charges were presented against the other two LMPD Detective and Sergeant, I believe, that’s something that I believe the public really wants to know. If there were charges presented against those individuals, they want to know what they were. That may not be housed within those recordings. And we don’t know that.

Mr. Wilson: (24:41)
What would not be? What could possibly not be on those recordings? What kind of discussions would a prosecutor have with the grand jury and it not be recorded?

Kevin Glogower: (24:54)
Again, in typical course, it’s been my experience that the only thing that is recorded is the testimony presented. There is not necessarily a discussion that’s recorded between the prosecuting entity and the grand jurors about specific charges. What happens is a lot of times what you hear is essentially them handing a document to the grand jury and saying, “We’re here on a case against so-and-so involving the following charges.” And then they call an individual as a witness, put on some proof, sadly in about 15 minutes people get indicted. But in this case, we know there are anomalies to the normal course. We know that it took roughly two and a half days. That is, to use a term from a question earlier, that’s unprecedented in Jefferson County, Kentucky at the state level. What we don’t know is when did they present charges? Did they do it in the recording? Did they present all the charges they alluded to? I know over here, I think earlier there was a discussion of the statement of they walked them through the six different types of homicide is I think close to what-

Kevin Glogower: (26:03)
… through the six different types of homicide is, I think, close to what Attorney General Cameron said at the initial press conference. But now they say all they recommended was the one endangerment. That issue has not been cleared up. That issue has not been directly addressed. And those are exactly the concerns that our client has, that we believe other grand jurors probably have, and that the public has.

Speaker 6: (26:24)
Based on your years of experience, Kevin, what was your personal reaction when you read that sentence that the only charge recommended was one, endangerment?

Kevin Glogower: (26:32)
Did I have a lot more questions? I mean, that was my initial impression. I want to know what was presented, just like everybody else in the community. If you’re going to definitively state, “This is my only recommendation,” which I’ll let you all go back and compare it to previous statements, I’m not sure that fully tracked the words from the first press conference, I think it leaves wide open what was presented, which has been directly asked and has not been answered.

Speaker 7: (27:00)
How much-

Kevin Glogower: (27:01)
Yes, sir. Sorry.

Speaker 7: (27:04)
How much has this jury shared with you about what happened during those two and a half days? Did they tell you everything that happened? Is there some stuff that they haven’t told you yet that you just … How much do you know?

Kevin Glogower: (27:17)
We’ve had detailed discussions. I would probably never tell you that somebody told me everything that happened. In this instance, our client recounted as best they could their memory. Something for you all to keep in mind when we’re were talking about the secrecy and the rules, when you’re under the impression or an order or an oath that you cannot disclose something, you got to watch what you’re doing. So what there doesn’t exist, I would imagine, are written notes from grand jurors. Generally, those are taken from them after the proceedings because of these very rules that we’re discussing. So there are most definitely things that I don’t know, but a lot of what happened was discussed.

Female: (28:01)
Kevin, a couple of questions. I guess kind of logistically first, so Judge Ann Bailey Smith said, “Here’s your order. We need these by noon tomorrow, all the proceedings.” So say Daniel Cameron’s office complies with that. And a couple weeks down the road, the judge ruled on your case in favor. What more, I guess, would that … Because you had already mentioned the public, we would be able to get access to that by tomorrow at noon if Cameron’s office does comply, but a couple weeks down the road, does your motion, if the judge rules in favor of it, just give your client and other jurors now the chance to talk more about it in public?

Kevin Glogower: (28:37)
Well, to some extent, that’s going to be left up to the judge. But I think I know what you’re getting at. And I think it does potentially. If it goes to the way we would like it to, I think it gives not only our client, but any other grand jury in this process the right to discuss that. We tried our best. And I’m sure if I went back and read it right now, I wouldn’t be happy with everything in the motion, but we tried our best to do it in a way that would free up other grand jurors if they so chose. But whatever order comes from the court, I’m sure it will be carefully considered and crafted. And it may only relate to our client. I don’t know. But the hope would be, and I think, again, for the sense of transparency and just everyone who’s interested knowing as much as they can, we sincerely hope that it would include everything that we put in our motion, everything that’s not been recorded, questions that haven’t been answered, and free these grand jurors up to have more candid conversations without the fear of any repercussion.

Female: (29:37)
And my second question for you, when your client came to you on Friday, did he come to you? The conversation you initially had, did you feel it was more him coming to you from a personal standpoint of wanting to be able to talk about this and not face that backlash or more community standpoint of he felt the community has a more of the right to know?

Kevin Glogower: (29:59)
Honestly, I think it was both. Again, I mentioned we want grand jurors to take their service seriously because the result of an indictment is somebody’s liberty interest, arguably the biggest interest any one individual has within our community regarding the laws of the land. But our client, at that time by Friday, had conflicting convictions. Wanting to do the right thing as a grand juror, but also wanting to do the right thing as a citizen at large outside of that one proceeding or anything related to it. So the discussion initially was how can you do that without opening yourself up to some form of repercussion from the authorities primarily, but obviously there are discussions of how does that play out in the event you become known and you make these statements and you’re subjected to what we’re sitting here doing today?

Speaker 3: (30:57)
Does your client believe that allowing him or any grand juror to speak will change the narrative of the grand jury’s decision and how it was reached?

Kevin Glogower: (31:06)
I’m sorry, I lost you on part of that.

Speaker 3: (31:08)
Sorry. Does your client believe that enabling him or any member of the grand jury to speak will change the narrative of the information that the public got from the attorney general on how the grand jury reached its decision and the decision that it came to?

Kevin Glogower: (31:23)
Well, the narrative in this case has been ever evolving. So absolutely. And I think, again, the point of the whole action is to get more into the narrative. And it’s not really about changing the narrative, it’s about opening it up to a more full truth for everybody to see. The court system’s an interesting place because they talk about the truth, nothing but the truth, and we’re going to get it all out there. In fact, I think Mr. Cameron even stated search for the truth. Sometimes you don’t get all of that because of these certain rules unless somebody steps up and takes action. And again, our client felt a strong conviction to step up and take action to see if they could help get all that information out. So I think it probably does change some narratives, but that’s going to be something that people consider on their own.

Speaker 3: (32:16)
Follow up, does the grand jury think that the grand jury was made a scapegoat?

Kevin Glogower: (32:23)
I mean, again, I don’t think I can talk about what we specifically discussed, but there were no derogatory terms used towards any officials or anything that was stated. And I’m not trying to pick at what you’re asking me. But again, I think, and if you look at the motion we mentioned, when you run for a position or you’re given a certain amount of authority, generally the public expects you to take a level of responsibility that’s commensurate with that position. And I don’t believe that happened here in the initial press conference.

Kevin Glogower: (32:52)
And I think we addressed that in our motion in hopes that not only is that responsibility being taken by the prosecuting [inaudible 00:06: 59], but that it’s being taken in a sense that it becomes a public issue for people to determine who’s accountable for what in this action? Who’s accountable for their actions that happen on March 23rd or who’s not? And why? Those are all the questions that have been floating around downtown Louisville for months. And I think trying to figure out where you fit in that narrative, to use your term, is what this individual is trying to do so that everybody can get a better idea of what they feel about the process and what they feel about the responsibilities and the accountability of everyone involved.

Speaker 8: (33:34)
Is your client on the grand juror that feels like this or does your client have other grand jurors that support this mission?

Kevin Glogower: (33:43)
I can only speak for our client, but I would imagine that there’s a similar concern from at least some grand jurors just based on what’s been put in the public. But specifically, we did not discuss any other grand juries in our meetings.

Speaker 8: (33:58)
If the ruling is in your favor or when the recordings do come out, will that let the public know the racial makeup of this jury?

Kevin Glogower: (34:05)
No, I don’t believe so, no.

Speaker 8: (34:07)
Do you know the racial makeup and could you share that with us?

Kevin Glogower: (34:10)
I have some information, but I can’t share it with you. I would say that I don’t believe that it was an atypical makeup.

Speaker 9: (34:16)
So clarify, does your client want to speak out eventually but cannot because of the judge’s ruling?

Kevin Glogower: (34:22)
A couple things to that question. Our client has an interest in anonymity, not only because of the rules, but also because of the public scrutiny of the case. So at this time, I don’t foresee coming off of that stance until a lot changes. If the ruling goes in our favor, as you put it, then we will address how the information gets put out there, whether it’d be done in writing, through question and answer or whatever, we’ll explore those different options. We’ll explore the issue of anonymity. But again, as asked over here, it’s an ever evolving narrative and we have to have a court ruling before not only our client feels more comfortable releasing some information, but quite honestly, as a legal team, we’re not going to advise our client to speak to anything that could possibly subject them to contempt of court or any other form of prosecution.

Speaker 7: (35:20)
You mentioned a little bit ago that two and a half days was unprecedented. Can you explain why it was that it took that long? I mean, I understand that there were special things that happened for this particular grand jury, but I’m just spit balling here. Was there some big debate amongst the jurors? Did they have a problem with this as they were being presented the evidence? Is that why it took so long?

Kevin Glogower: (35:44)
Again, I can’t tell you anything that I discussed with our client, but I’ll tell you this. Generally, grand jury proceedings last 30 minutes or less. This particular set of grand jurors was in service for the month of September. So they heard several other cases prior to the Breonna Taylor case, of which none of them would’ve lasted two and a half days. And I’ll freely tell you, none of them lasted two and a half days other than this one. So when I say it’s unprecedented or atypical, it’s because it is. And to answer your question as to why I think that is, you’d have to ask the attorney general. And I think from what they’ve told us thus far, it’s because they want public accountability. They wanted to say that they put forward all the evidence before the grand jury proceedings were complete, but we don’t actually know that. And that’s part of why it needs to be opened up. That’s part of why our client felt the way they feel and decided to file the action that we filed yesterday.

Speaker 7: (36:46)
Can you break down how those two and a half days happened? Was it just Cameron presented the information in about 10 minutes or so? And then the witness came by, another 10 minutes? And then the rest of the time was just deliberation?

Kevin Glogower: (37:02)
I mean, I can’t really get into that. I can tell you that there was, I should say, a lot of evidence presented. But I don’t know if it was the complete investigation that was presented, I don’t know exactly how many witnesses were put up. I will tell you, in light of that last statement, there are different rules in front of a grand jury as opposed to a jury trial. So witnesses don’t have to have firsthand knowledge of whatever they’re testifying to in front of the jury, which is very important for the public to know. So in theory, at least, three or four witnesses could have testified over two and a half days to the statements of 20 different people. But these are all questions that are great and that should be answered, but I’m not at liberty to discuss that with you today. And I’m sorry about that, but I really hope the rest of that information does get out. Yes, sir.

Mr. Wilson: (37:56)
Does the grand jury think that their opinions were misrepresented?

Kevin Glogower: (38:03)
I mean, I can’t speak to the grand jury as a whole. And again, I can tell you my client has an issue with the levels of accountability and disclosures that have happened to this point. And in our discussions, those concerns did not go away when we discussed the rule of secrecy for the grand jury, when we discussed the disclosure of discovery through the criminal process. So we felt compelled to act upon it. And we’re going to sit back and hopefully get an order from the court that says we can help answer some of these questions.

Female: (38:31)

Mr. Wilson: (38:32)
Could I follow up just for a second?

Kevin Glogower: (38:35)
I’ll leave that to you two.

Mr. Wilson: (38:36)
If The Times attributed to you that your client felt that he is misrepresented and was agreed that they weren’t allowed to vote on charges against Mattingly and Cosgrove, are you disputing that or you’re just saying in the light of day, you can’t say that here today?

Kevin Glogower: (39:01)
As you’re relaying a quote to me-

Speaker 10: (39:03)
… here today.

Kevin Glogower: (39:03)
As you’re relaying a quote to me, I can tell you, I did not say anything like that. However somebody interprets something I say I lose control over that. None of us really like that, quite frankly. But what I can tell you is in the press conference, after the indictment was reported, it was stated that certain things were presented and certain agreements were had between the grand jury and the team from the Attorney General’s office. It is important, and our client feels it’s important, that however they could have gotten there, whether they did or not, is something that the public gets to see. Yes, ma’am?

Female: (39:41)
Kevin, this question doesn’t have to do with the grand jury proceeding, so I hope you can shed some light.

Kevin Glogower: (39:46)
We’ll see.

Female: (39:46)
Did your client know that grand jurors had the ability to request or suggest other charges be discussed or presented before the proceedings, and do they have that knowledge now after the proceedings?

Kevin Glogower: (40:03)
Well, hopefully, my client feels like they have all the knowledge they could have on that because we’ve had extensive meetings and discussions, but that’s beside your point. That’s a great question. And that’s a question that hopefully can be answered directly by grand jurors in the near future because you’re right.

Kevin Glogower: (40:19)
The rules in Kentucky allow the grand jury as a body to investigate, to make decisions on charges, to ask questions of the prosecuting authority, and to ask about additional charges. We don’t know if that happened here publicly. We don’t know what all was discussed at all. We don’t know what all is going to be in that recording. Which is going back to questions over here, that’s why we drafted the motion in the way we did to try to get a ruling from the court to say, “What exactly can we discuss? Are we limited to the only things that are recorded, or can we talk about the things that weren’t recorded?” Because there may well have been questions asked. There have been questions asked about this case from day one from everybody in the country essentially, but by a whole lot of people. 12 people in a room that get to see more than anybody else has likely have a lot of questions as well, and that’s something we’d like to see get out. Yes, sir?

Speaker 11: (41:16)
Mr. [inaudible 00:41:17], you said the jury was not [inaudible 00:02:20], atypical, the makeup of the jury?

Kevin Glogower: (41:23)
I don’t have all the specifics. I said it wasn’t atypical. What I can tell you is there’s a standard process where summons are issued to prospective jurors in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. It’s my understanding that was complied with. This was a regular panel. This was not a special grand jury. I am of the opinion the Attorney General if they so chose could have impaneled a special grand jury, but they didn’t do so. So it’s my understanding it’s not an atypical makeup when you’re looking at demographics. It would be the normal course which-

Speaker 11: (42:00)
[ crosstalk 00:42:01]-

Kevin Glogower: (42:02)
It probably appears underrepresented by minorities, but that’s something that perhaps becomes a part of the bigger discussion because that’s not atypical in Kentucky, and there are different reasons why that it’s not a part of what we filed, but I think that’s important to note, if and when you find out the actual demographics. Because the whole point of getting all this out there is to see what the next steps are and the next questions, and those are the concerns that our client had too. And if that involves how do we impanel grand juries, if it involves how do we seek and obtain and execute search warrants and things of that nature, these are the questions we’re hoping to get answered.

Speaker 11: (42:41)
And how much of this case did your client know before they served on this grand jury?

Kevin Glogower: (42:49)
I don’t believe that my client knew much about the case at all prior to serving on the grand jury.

Mr. Wilson: (42:56)
I have one last question.

Kevin Glogower: (42:58)
Yes, sir?

Mr. Wilson: (42:59)
Who decided that Mattingly and Cosgrove acted in self-defense? Was that the Attorney General’s office or the grand jury?

Kevin Glogower: (43:09)
Well, again, I can’t tell you anything about my discussions, but I can tell you that there are two statements from the Attorney General, one at the press conference, and one in last night’s press release that don’t fit together.

Mr. Wilson: (43:20)
In what way?

Kevin Glogower: (43:20)
Well, in the press conference he said that his team determined that those actions were justified by Mattingly and Cosgrove, and that the grand jury agreed. His release last night states that they only recommended one endangerment and they also reference … let me see if I have it here for you. “Our prosecutors presented all of the evidence, even though the evidence supported that Sergeant Mattingly and Detective Cosgrove were justified in their use of force after having been fired upon by Kenneth Walker.” That is verbatim a statement from the office of the Attorney General. That does not mention the grand jury making that decision, so you’re going to have to ask them at some point, or it’s going to have to come out through the evidence in some case as to who actually made that decision. But it sure sounds in that one like they did, the Attorney General’s Office.

Speaker 12: (44:08)
I got one last question [inaudible 00:05:12].

Kevin Glogower: (44:08)
Yes, sir.

Speaker 12: (44:12)
So now that the attorney general says that they’re going to release the grand jury reportings-

Kevin Glogower: (44:18)
Because they have to.

Speaker 12: (44:20)
Right. Does that satisfying what you guys [inaudible 00:44:24]?

Kevin Glogower: (44:24)
No. And I want to make that very clear because, again, the proceedings don’t contain everything that happened with the grand jury. It doesn’t cover anything that’s not on the recording, obviously, right? So whatever discussion, if it’s about charges or why we didn’t make certain charges, how do certain defenses apply? What additional facts are there? If it’s not recorded, and the grand jurors are not given the liberty to speak about that, then nobody’s ever really going to know about that. Or maybe somebody takes the chance and discloses something and subjects himself to being put in jail for six months because that’s the penalty for contempt of court.

Kevin Glogower: (45:03)
Our motion is still active and we’re not backing off because we need to know are we going to get it all out there, or are we only going to go with what’s on the recording?

Speaker 8: (45:15)
So you said your client didn’t really know much about this case before he served on the grand jury. But it’s been pretty well-documented, the vitriol of this case, especially in Louisville, your client’s from Louisville … I’m just curious, how did your client not know much about this case? And why, because he didn’t know much before, now afterwards, he filed a suit because he wants this stuff to come out? Because he wasn’t that involved with it beforehand.

Kevin Glogower: (45:40)
I mean, I think I follow your question, and I’ll say this, I’m not sure anybody within the community who does not work in law enforcement or in the legal community, in the court system, et cetera, really knew a lot about this case before it went to the grand jury. There are lots of questions about facts and witnesses that are still out there. Again, there were questions asked in the press conference about statement of one witness versus the statement of multiple other witnesses to the contrary. So I don’t know what level of time my client spent watching the news or how they interact on social media. That’s irrelevant to our action.

Kevin Glogower: (46:24)
But to answer your question as to why do you then seek some sort of declaration of your rights, it’s because you did participate for two-and-a-half days in these proceedings. My client now knows a lot more than most people, certainly more than the general public, and then obviously has seen how it’s been handled from that point. And again, within short order felt compelled to seek out some information as to their rights because they felt compelled to help get all of the information out to the public.

Speaker 13: (46:58)
Good. Thank you.

Kevin Glogower: (47:00)
Everybody good?

Speaker 14: (47:00)
Thank you.

Kevin Glogower: (47:01)
All right. Thank you all very much. Appreciate it.

Speaker 15: (47:03)
I don’t think we ever met because you’ve never done anything wrong to me, right?

Kevin Glogower: (47:14)
Let’s hope this is the last meeting then. How about that?

Speaker 15: (47:17)
If your client ever does want to speak about it, let me know. We can protect their anonymity.

Kevin Glogower: (47:24)
We’ll keep that in mind. All options are still open on that.

Speaker 16: (47:27)
The same question [inaudible 00:08: 30].

Kevin Glogower: (47:31)
Good Morning, America. Yeah, like we said, it’s something that has to be explored at a later date necessarily because we’re awaiting a ruling for the court to make sure that we know what we can and can’t do.

Transcribe Your Own Content

Try Rev and save time transcribing, captioning, and subtitling.