Shelby County State’s Attorney Woolery Provided False Information To The Court

Shelby Co. (ECWd) –

Once again, we must publish the actual court hearing transcript that provides the public with the whole truth rather than the partial truth wrapped in assumptions and innuendos by local propagandists on social media.

We covered the improper subpoenas issued by Shelby County State’s Attorney in these two articles, here and here.

Monday morning, August 26, 2024, a hearing was held on the improper subpoenas and several notable things took place.

Rather than answer the motion to quash with some kind of defense for all the failures in the issuance of two subpoenas, Woolery moved to withdraw the pending administrative subpoenas.

Woolery’s reasoning for the withdraw to the court is 100% false, making her statement a total fabrication to the court.

“And the reason behind withdrawing the subpoenas is simply that, one of the individuals who was subpoenaed for these documents actually published those to the public, so there’s no reason to move forward with that investigative subpoena at this time.”

We published the documents in question after a request to the treasurer for those public records the day after the county board meeting.  Neither of the subpoenaed individuals released those records to the public. We challenge Woolery to provide one shred of evidence supporting her statement to the court on that matter.

Robert Hanlon, attorney for those who received the subpoena, pointed out all the legal reasons the subpoenas were improper, and not once did the court or Woolery disagree. Woolery’s indication of her error and why is pretty ironic in light of all the missing files from the State’s Attorney’s office when Nichole Kroncke left office.

“I admit that that is completely my fault for using a form left in my office by my predecessor.”

“And it is common practice to rely on forms in any practice of law, whether that’s civil practice or criminal practice. So I admit that that is absolutely my fault for using a form left by my predecessor,”

When Hanlon became State’s Attorney there was not a single “form” left by the predecessor as all those electronic files were deleted.  According to Hanlon, he had no recollection of any subpoena “form” for the Sixth Circuit being on his computer but confirmed there may have been one on the computer used by the Moultrie County SA and ASA as they are in that circuit.  Regardless of the location of the “form”, issuing a subpoena returnable to the SA rather than the court and without the proper seal of the court is simply improper as was pointed out in the hearing.

Only after first blaming the prior State’s Attorney for her mistakes does she admit there was an error in the subpoena but only to indicate it was not an error that rose worthy of sanctions.

“the error in my subpoena do not reflect the request for sanction by Mr. Hanlon.”

Those who attended the hearing could see that Woolery appeared concerned that she may be sanctioned for her actions.  Her justification for no sanctions should be concerning for those who understand how the judicial system is supposed to work.

“As I previously stated that the requested documents should have been provided to my office previously, however, I had to seek those by subpoena and then they were released to the public.” (emphasis added)

Why should those documents have been provided to her?  She is not on the county board and has no justification to demand them any more than department heads who want to see them.  They were drafts that had not been discussed in a public meeting so any release outside the county board is improper. She didn’t even make a phone call to either party to ask for them but instead, opened a criminal investigation and issued a subpoena that violated the rules, as pointed out in the hearing and not disputed.  What crime does she believe took place?  What reasonable articulable suspicion supports her actions?

While the local propaganda pushes a narrative that the sought-after sanctions were denied, that too is a misrepresentation and failure to understand the legal system.

THE COURT: As far as the request as to sanctions, what specifically is being requested? (underline added)

MR. HANLON:

• One, I’m asking the Court to issue a rule to show cause why she should not be held in contempt for a substantial failure to comply with the rules of practice.
• Two, I’m asking that the State’s Attorney individually be sanctioned for misappropriating the power of the Court for improper purposes.
• I’m also asking the Court enter an order to audit the MX cases since she took office on May 10,24, to ensure that any and all subpoenas that were issued by the State didn’t — did not in fact circumvent the power of the Court to review the subpoenas and the returns on those subpoenas.

THE COURT: So three parts to what’s being requested there. (emphasis added)

While the court stated he was denying sanctions, the Judge did audit the MX cases in the file which was one of the very sanctions requested. So to claim a blanket “sanctions denied” is misleading at best.  He also confirmed Woolery’s subpoenas were not proper when he confirmed this audit review.

The Court: I did go back to court records and looked at the MX files that had been initiated since the time current administration took office. These were the only two administrative subpoenas that I noted in those records. And, again, that does not show a pattern of abuse. I believe it’s a limited mistake that involved these two related cases. (emphasis added)

We hope these subpoenas were a “limited mistake” and that Woolery takes this as a learning moment.  Owning her mistake would be a good start moving forward rather than blaming her predecessor who had nothing to do with filling out and issuing those subpoenas.

The subpoenas were quashed, just as we expected them to be.

A copy of the actual transcript can be downloaded at this link or viewed below.  We encourage everyone to read the entire transcript, not just the points we highlighted concerning this article.