Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron responds to jurors’ impeachment attempt

In a fiery response to an impeachment petition from grand jurors in the Breonna Taylor case, Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron called the attempt a “mockery” and suggested it was grand jurors themselves who were responsible for the lack of additional criminal charges.

The three anonymous grand jurors and their attorney, Cameron’s team wrote, have blamed the attorney general for “perceived shortcomings” in the case and the recommended charges.

“But what about the grand jurors’ responsibility — while the grand jury was empaneled and receiving evidence — if they thought a crime was committed or if they wanted more information?” the response said. 

“Simply put,” it added, “the grand jury had the right and the power to ask for more evidence, and ultimately to bring any charge it deemed appropriate.” 

Cameron’s office was the special prosecutor tasked with reviewing the fatal Louisville Metro Police shooting of Taylor in her apartment. Cameron’s team ultimately recommended three wanton endangerment charges against former Detective Brett Hankison for shooting into a neighboring apartment.

The two other officers who fired their guns, Sgt. Jonathan Mattingly and former Detective Myles Cosgrove, were justified in shooting, Cameron’s office concluded.

No one has been charged for the 26-year-old emergency room technician’s March 13 death. 

In a petition announced Jan. 22, three of the grand jurors sought Cameron’s impeachment and removal from public office, alleging he breached public trust and failed to comply with his duties by misrepresenting findings of the grand jury. 

‘The Grand Jurors did not choose this battle’:Breonna Taylor grand jurors file petition to impeach Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron

In particular, the grand jurors wrote in the impeachment petition that Cameron “misled the public” when he said the grand jury agreed Mattingly and Cosgrove were justified, and he inaccurately stated in a press conference his office walked the jurors through “every homicide offense” before they reached a conclusion. 

“Neither Cameron nor anyone from his office mentioned any homicide offense to the grand jury,” the petition said. “Not only were no homicide offenses presented as alleged, no charges of any kind were presented to the Grand Jury other than the three wanton endangerment charges against Detective Hankison.”

When speaking at a press conference the day of the indictment, Cameron said homicide charges were not applicable to officers Cosgrove and Mattingly because they were justified in their use of force, “and the grand jury agreed” with that assessment. 

In a statement released only after a grand juror filed a motion seeking to speak freely, Cameron’s office clarified “the only charge recommended (to the grand jury) was wanton endangerment” for Hankison.

In his response to the petition, however, Cameron claims:

• No evidence was withheld and, in fact, the presentation of the case was “one of the longest” in state history. It lasted 2 ½ days in September.
• Grand jurors, under the powers of the grand jury, could have requested subpoenas be issued or invoked their right to question witnesses with prosecutors excluded from the room.
• Cameron and the office’s staff were not present for jury deliberations.

Anna Whites, the attorney who filed the impeachment petition, said in a written statement that “the most powerful law enforcement official in Kentucky has a duty to listen to the voices of those he serves and to respect their concerns.”

“There is no place in this process for belittling private citizens while refusing to answer serious charges,” she wrote.

Whites said the petitioner’s response would be filed Tuesday, as requested by the impeachment committee considering the petition. 

‘A movement of racial justice’:Black Lives Matter nominated for Nobel Peace Prize

In his response, Cameron also alleges the grand jurors’ petition lacks evidence of a “misdemeanor.” 

If grand jurors are alleging he failed to perform his duty by not recommending a homicide charge, he adds, that would have been “unreasonable and unethical” for his team to do. 

“A prosecutor does not have a legal duty to seek a charge that he or she believes is not supported by the facts and law,” Cameron said, adding state laws around justification were projectedon a wall and read to the grand jury.

The grand jurors have said they would have supported bringing additional charges against more officers if given the chance.

The attorney general’s team also states he’ll continue to stand for the rule of law and its application without “fear or favor,” then lists what he’s faced during the case.

“Even in the face of the death threats the Attorney General receives. Even in the face of the calls that someone is going to burn down the office while we work. Even in the face of the bigots who send emails to the Attorney General calling him the ‘N’ word, Uncle Tom, and Oreo. Even in the fact of those who impugn the character of some of the finest career public servants the Commonwealth has ever known,” he adds. “Even in the face of those who employ fear tactics, like coming to another person’s home and occupying his property in an attempt to intimidate.”

Cameron, like others, came under a national spotlight around the Taylor case. Protesters have demonstrated outside his East End home, and he’s sought private security, but he’s rarely discussed threats or offensive treatment in public. 

‘Beyond the bounds of decency’

The petitioners also call for Cameron’s impeachment for “incitement and support of insurrection and violence,” citing his involvement with a Republican attorneys general organization that financed robocalls encouraging people to protest at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

The Rule of Law Defense Fund — a fundraising arm of the Republican Attorneys General Association, where Cameron serves on the executive committee — called on people to march on the Capitol that day and called on Congress “to stop the steal”

Feds up reward to $100,000:Pipe bombs placed at RNC, DNC night before Capitol riot

A deadly riot took place as a mob of Donald Trump supporters stormed the Capitol and delayed the certification of President Joe Biden’s victory as both chambers of Congress were evacuated.

Cameron’s response called the allegation “false, beyond the bounds of decency, and contemptuous.”

It also points out Cameron had denounced the events at the Capitol before he knew of the robocall, saying the “violence and anarchy” must stop.

“The petitioner has not, and cannot, come forward with any evidence that suggests the Attorney General approved, or even knew of, the robocall prior to its issuance, much less that he incited or supported insurrection and violence,” Cameron’s response said.

Claim about misuse of funds is ‘unintelligible’

The petition also alleges Cameron misspent taxpayer funds and abused his office by joining a lawsuit challenging ballots in Pennsylvania, which “created baseless doubt about the 2020 Presidential election by seeking to disenfranchise Pennsylvania voters.”

Two days after Biden was declared the winner of the presidential race in November, Cameron signed an amicus brief supporting a lawsuit challenging the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision to allow mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrived in the mail by the following Friday. 

Cameron’s office counters by saying the accusation against him is “hard to follow,” “unintelligible” and has “procedural defects,” but filing such amicus briefs is routine.

“Common sense also demonstrates that the Attorney General’s decision to join the briefs was proper,” the response said.

Follow Darcy Costello on Twitter: @dctello.

Follow Tessa Duvall on Twitter: @tessaduvall.